Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 25

8 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

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

III 
Beyond  these  redressability  problems  may  lie  still  an-
other.  Recall  the  essential  premise  on  which  the  district 
court proceeded—that the APA empowers courts to vacate 
agency action.  The federal government vigorously disputes 
this  premise,  arguing  that  the  law  does  not  contemplate
this form of relief.  The reasons the government offers are 
plenty and serious enough to warrant careful consideration. 

A 
Traditionally, when a federal court finds a remedy mer-
ited, it provides party-specific relief, directing the defend-
ant to take or not take some action relative to the plaintiff.
If  the  court’s  remedial order  affects  nonparties,  it  does  so 
only incidentally.  See, e.g., Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 
U. S. 922, 931 (1975) (“[N]either declaratory nor injunctive
relief  can  directly  interfere  with  the  enforcement  of  con-
tested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the par-
ticular federal plaintiffs.”); Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 
F. 2d 832 (CA2 1930) (L. Hand, J.) (“[A] court of equity . . . 
cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large.”); see also Trump 
v.  Hawaii,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concur-
ring)  (slip  op.,  at  6).  This  tracks  the  founding-era  under-
standing that courts “render a judgment or decree upon the 
rights of the litigant[s].”  Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 
Pet. 657, 718 (1838).  It also ensures that federal courts re-
spect the limits of their Article III authority to decide cases 
and controversies and avoid trenching on the power of the
elected  branches  to  shape  legal  rights  and  duties  more 
broadly.  After all, the “judicial Power” is the power to “de-
cide cases for parties, not questions for everyone.”  S. Bray,
Multiple Chancellors:  Reforming the National Injunction,
131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 421 (2017).

Despite  these  foundational  principles,  in  recent  years  a
number of lower courts have asserted the authority to issue