Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 50

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

to  vacate  its  judgment  under  Federal  Rule of  Civil  Proce-
dure  60(b).    The  Government  had  sought  to  expedite  pro-
ceedings at every stage, including by seeking emergency re-
lief  in  the  Fifth  Circuit  and  this  Court,  and  under  these 
circumstances, it was eminently reasonable for the Court of 
Appeals to  conclude that additional delay would not have 
served the interests of “economy of time and effort.”  Landis 
v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936).

Third, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the
October 29 Memoranda could not satisfy our criteria for a 
final  agency  action  that  could  be  reviewed  in  the  first  in-
stance in the Court of Appeals under the APA.  Like this 
Court, the courts of appeal are courts of “ ‘review, and not 
first  view.’ ”    City  of  Austin  v.  Reagan  Nat.  Advertising  of 
Austin, LLC, 596 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (slip op., at 13–
14)  (quoting  Zivotofsky  v.  Clinton,  566  U. S.  189,  201 
(2012)).  With no administrative record for the October 29 
Memoranda  before  it,  the  Court  of  Appeals  was  in  a  poor
position  to  assess  whether  the  memoranda  actually
“mark[ed] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmak-
ing process,” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178 (1997) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted).  Moreover, the October 29 
Memoranda did not purport to result in a final determina-
tion  of  “ ‘rights  or  obligations.’ ”    Ibid.  As  DHS  acknowl-
edged,  “the  termination  of  MPP”  could  not  “be  imple-
mented” until there was “a final judicial decision to vacate
the . . . injunction.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 264a, 270a.  And 
until  that  was  accomplished,  the  memoranda  did  not  im-
pose  on  DHS  officers  or  employees  any  “ ‘obligatio[n]’ ”  to
cease implementation of MPP.  Bennett, 520 U. S., at 178. 
On this basis, the Fifth Circuit rightly understood that the
October  29  Memoranda  could  have  no  legal  effect  while
DHS was bound by an injunction to implement MPP in good 
faith and that this injunction would remain in force unless 
the  Government’s  challenge  to  the  June  termination  was