Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

17 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

appeals.  To determine whether to grant a stay, the court of 
appeals  may  then  promptly  review  the  Government’s 
likelihood of success on the merits, among other factors.  If 
the  court  of  appeals  denies  a  stay,  the  Government  may
seek further review in this Court.  See Labrador v. Poe, 601 
U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in grant 
of stay) (slip op., at 2).  The Government’s frustration with 
the occasional incorrect district court vacatur of an agency
rule  is  understandable.    But  especially  given  the  readily
accessible  and  regularly  utilized  procedures  for  staying  a 
district court’s vacatur,8 we should not overreact by entirely 
gutting  vacatur  as  a  remedy  and  thereby  barring
unregulated  but  adversely  affected  parties  from  bringing 
APA suits. 

Not  surprisingly,  when  asked  at  oral  argument  in  this
case  about  the  extraordinary  consequences  of  its  new  no-
vacatur position, the Government seemed to backpedal and
hedge a bit.  The Government suggested that vacatur may
actually still be appropriate if it is “the only way to give the 
party  before  the  court  relief.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  76.    The 
Government also said that “it’s possible that the only way 
to provide” Corner Post “relief would be vacatur.”  Ibid. 

I appreciate the Government’s apparent attempt to back
away  from  its  extreme  stance.  But  in  doing  so,  the
Government also revealed the weakness of its position.  The 
meaning  of  “set  aside”  in  the  APA  cannot  reasonably
depend  on  the  specific  party  before  the  court.    Either  the 
APA authorizes vacatur, or it does not. 

More  to  the  point,  the  Government’s  answer  at  oral
argument is a solution in search of a problem.  The federal 
courts have long interpreted the APA to authorize vacatur
of agency actions.  Both the text and the history of the APA 
support  that  interpretation,  and  courts  have  had  no  real 

—————— 

8 If the problem became sufficiently severe, the Executive Branch could 

always ask Congress to limit the remedies available under the APA.