Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 35

18 

UNITED STATES v. TEXAS 

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

the  orderly  review  of  important  questions,  lead  to  forum 
shopping, render meaningless rules about joinder and class 
actions,  and  facilitate  efforts  to  evade  the  APA’s  normal 
rulemaking processes.  Vacatur can also sweep up nonpar-
ties who may not wish to receive the benefit of the court’s 
decision.  Exactly  that  happened  here.    Dozens  of  States, 
counties, and cities tell us they did not seek and do not want 
the  “benefit”  of  the  district  court’s  vacatur  order  in  this 
case.  See  Brief  for  New  York  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  1–2; 
Brief for 21 Cities, Counties, and Local Government Organ-
izations as Amici Curiae 2–3. 

More importantly still, universal relief, whether by way 
of injunction or vacatur, strains our separation of powers.
It exaggerates the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional 
order, allowing individual judges to act more like a legisla-
ture  by  decreeing  the  rights  and  duties  of  people  nation-
wide.  This  Court  has  warned  that  “[f]ew  exercises  of  the 
judicial  power  are  more  likely  to  undermine  public  confi-
dence in the neutrality and integrity of the Judiciary than
one which casts [courts] in the role of a Council of Revision, 
conferring on [themselves] the power to invalidate laws at
the  behest  of  anyone  who  disagrees  with  them.”  Arizona 
Christian  School  Tuition  Organization  v.  Winn,  563  U. S. 
125, 145–146 (2011).  At a minimum, then, district courts 
must  carefully  consider  all  these  things  before  doling  out 
universal relief.  And courts of appeals must do their part, 
too, asking whether party-specific relief can adequately pro-
tect the plaintiff ’s interests.  If so, an appellate court should
not hesitate to hold that broader relief is an abuse of discre-
tion.  Cf. Kentucky v. Biden, 57 F. 4th 545, 556–557 (CA6 
2023) (Larsen, J.). 

* 
In our system of government, federal courts play an im-
portant but limited role by resolving cases and controver-
sies.  Standing doctrine honors this limitation at the front