Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 

for Federal Respondents 5, n. 3; how the APA’s procedural
requirements  apply  in  this  unusual  circumstance,  cf. 
§551(5); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 
515 (2009); and more.

It has become clear that this mare’s nest could stand in 
the way of our reaching the question presented on which we
granted certiorari, or at the very least, complicate our reso-
lution  of  that  question.  I  therefore  concur  in  the  Court’s 
dismissal of the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. 
But  that  resolution  should  not  be  taken  as  reflective  of  a 
view on any of the foregoing issues, or on the appropriate
resolution of other litigation, pending or future, related to 
the 2019 Public Charge Rule, its repeal, or its replacement 
by a new rule.  See Cook County v. Mayorkas, 340 F. R. D. 
35  (ND  Ill. 2021),  appeal  pending,  No.  21–2561  (CA7);  87 
Fed. Reg. 10571 (2022) (new proposed rule that would “im-
plement a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule”).