Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 35

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

relief  that  courts  may  award  in  APA  suits  by  regulated 
parties,  but  also  whether  unregulated  parties  can  obtain 
relief under the APA at all.  In most APA litigation brought 
by  unregulated  but  adversely  affected  parties,  a  plaintiff 
can obtain relief only through vacatur of the adverse agency
action.  Prohibiting  courts  from  vacating  agency  actions
would  essentially  close  the  courthouse  doors  on  those
unregulated plaintiffs—a radical change to administrative
law  that  would  insulate  a  broad  swath  of  agency  actions
from any judicial review.3 

Vacatur  is  therefore  essential  to  fulfill  the  “basic 
presumption of judicial review” for parties who have been 
“adversely affected or aggrieved” by federal agency action. 
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967) 
(quotation marks omitted).  The Court has long applied that
“strong presumption” unless there is a “persuasive reason 
to believe” that Congress intended to bar review of certain
actions.  Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 
476  U. S.  667,  670  (1986)  (quotation  marks  omitted);  see 
also,  e.g.,  Weyerhaeuser  Co.  v.  United  States  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Serv.,  586  U. S.  9,  22–23  (2018);  Sackett  v.  EPA, 
566  U. S.  120,  128–131  (2012).    Eliminating  the  vacatur 
remedy  would  contravene  the  strong  Abbott  Laboratories 
presumption  by  insulating  many  agency  rules  from 
the 
(which  perhaps 
meaningful 
Government’s motivation for its recent campaign). 

judicial  review 

is 

The absence of vacatur would also create an asymmetry.
For example, without the vacatur remedy, a bank could still 
challenge  the  Board’s  regulation  of  interchange  fees  in  a 
suit for injunctive relief.  The bank might argue that the fee 
cap is too low and that the Board should be enjoined from 
enforcing  the  cap  against  the  bank—a  result  that  would 
—————— 

3 Most of the recent academic and judicial discussion of this issue has
addressed suits by regulated parties.  That discussion has largely missed 
a major piece of the issue—suits by unregulated but adversely affected 
parties.