Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

decrees that purport to define the rights and duties of some-
times  millions  of  people  who  are  not  parties  before  them.
Three years ago, I reflected on the rise of the “universal in-
junctio[n]” and raised questions about its consistency with
the separation of powers and our precedents.  Department 
of Homeland Security v. New York, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) 
(opinion concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 3).  I ob-
served, too, that “the routine issuance of universal injunc-
tions” has proven “unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants,
the  government,  courts,  and  all  those  affected  by  these 
[sometimes] conflicting” decrees.  Ibid. 

Matters have not improved with time.  Universal injunc-
tions continue to intrude on powers reserved for the elected 
branches.  They  continue  to  deprive  other  lower  courts  of 
the chance to weigh in on important questions before this 
Court has to decide them.  They continue to encourage par-
ties to engage in forum shopping and circumvent rules gov-
erning  class-wide  relief.  Recent  events  have  highlighted 
another problem too.  Sometimes, the government may ef-
fectively submit to a universal decree running against it in
order to avoid “the usual and important requirement, under 
the [APA], that a regulation originally promulgated using 
notice and comment . . . may only be repealed through no-
tice  and  comment.”    Arizona  v.  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concur-
ring) (slip op., at 2).  It is a strategy that amounts to little 
more than “ ‘rulemaking-by-collective-acquiescence.’ ”  Ibid.; 
see  also  Danco  Laboratories,  LLC  v.  Alliance  for  Hippo-
cratic Medicine, 598 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (ALITO, J., dissent-
ing from grant of application for stays) (slip op., at 3); Ari-
zona v. Mayorkas, 598 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2023) (statement 
of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 1–4). 

Today’s case presents a variation on the theme.  The dis-
trict  court  ordered  “wholesale  vacatur”  of  the  Guidelines, 
rendering them inoperable with respect to any person any-
where.  606 F. Supp. 3d, at 499, 502.  As authority for its