Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

16 

CORNER POST, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FRS 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

Past  and  Future  of  Universal  Vacatur,  133  Yale  L.  J.,  at 
2329–2335  (collecting  cases).  By  similarly  authorizing 
courts  to  “set  aside”  agency  actions,  the  APA  likewise 
authorized vacatur.  §706(2). 

Moreover,  although  vacatur  was  not  as  common  in  the
years surrounding the APA’s enactment, there is a simple
explanation for that:  Courts had few occasions to set aside 
agency  rules  before  this  Court’s  1967  decision  in  Abbott 
Laboratories v. Gardner, which significantly expanded the 
opportunities  for  facial,  pre-enforcement  review  of  agency
rules.  387  U. S.  136,  139–141.    Indeed,  it  was  not  until 
Abbott Laboratories that “preenforcement review of agency
rules” became “the norm, not the exception.”  S. Breyer & 
R.  Stewart,  Administrative  Law  and  Regulatory  Policy 
1137 (2d ed. 1985).

The  Government’s  current  position  on  vacatur  would 
de facto  overrule  Abbott  Laboratories  as  to  suits  by
unregulated  parties.  Not  surprisingly,  the  Government’s
current position on vacatur sounds very similar to Justice
Fortas’ dissent in a companion case to Abbott Laboratories, 
where  he  lamented  that  in  the  wake  of  those  decisions,  a 
court would be able to “suspend the operation of regulations 
in their entirety.”  Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 
U. S. 167, 175 (1967).  In any event, to the extent that the 
Government  worries  that  vacatur  of  rules  (as  opposed  to 
orders) is more common today than it was in the 1950s, the 
Government’s true grievance is with Abbott Laboratories. 

Fourth,  the  Government  objects  to  the  real-world 
consequences  that  occur  when  a  federal  district  court 
wrongly  vacates  a  lawful  rule.    I appreciate  that  concern.
But  federal  law  already  gives  the  Government  tools  to 
mitigate those consequences—if not avoid them altogether.
When  the  Government  believes  that  a  district  court  has 
erroneously  vacated  a  rule  (or  erroneously  issued  a 
preliminary  injunction  against  a  rule),  the  Government
may promptly seek a stay in the relevant federal court of