Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

11 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

against the developer, who is usually a private party.  See 
§704 (authorizing review of “agency action”).  Instead, the 
plaintiff typically sues the federal agency that approved the 
development  and  asks  a  federal  court  to  vacate  that
approval.

Some  of  those  suits  proceed  under  the  APA;  others
proceed  under  federal  statutory  review  provisions  that 
similarly authorize courts to “set aside” agency action.  See, 
e.g.,  15  U. S. C.  §717r(b)  (Natural  Gas  Act);  16  U. S. C. 
§825l(b) (Federal Power Act).  Regardless, all of those suits
depend on the availability of vacatur.

Many  APA  suits  similarly  challenge  federal  emissions 
limits  or  efficiency  standards  for  cars,  trucks,  and  other 
sources of pollution.  See, e.g., American Public Gas Assn. 
v.  Department  of  Energy,  72  F. 4th  1324  (CADC  2023). 
When  a  plaintiff  alleges  that  an  emissions  limit  does  too 
little to stop third parties from polluting the environment, 
the  plaintiff  cannot  bring  an  APA  suit  against  the  third 
party.  Rather,  the  plaintiff  must  sue  the  agency  that 
enacted  the  emissions  limit.    If  the  vacatur  remedy  were
unavailable,  the  agency  that  enacted  the  emissions  limit 
would  never  face  litigation  from  unregulated  parties
seeking stricter limits; the agency could face litigation only
from regulated parties seeking looser limits.

Workers and their unions also regularly challenge agency 
rules  that  rescind  or  loosen  federal  workplace  safety
standards.  See,  e.g.,  Transportation  Div.  of  Int’l  Assn.  of 
Sheet  Metal,  Air,  Rail,  and  Transp.  Workers  v.  Federal 
Railroad  Admin.,  988  F. 3d  1170  (CA9  2021)  (railroad 
industry); United Steel v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 
925 F. 3d 1279 (CADC 2019) (mining industry).  Those suits 
often arise under statutory review provisions that, like the
APA,  authorize  courts  to  “set  aside”  agency  actions.    See, 
e.g.,  28  U. S. C. §2342(7)  (railroad  industry);  30  U. S. C. 
§816(a)(1) (mining industry).  And the suits all depend on 
the availability of vacatur as a remedy.  In particular, the