Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

8 

CORNER POST, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FRS 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

allow the bank to charge higher fees.  But because Corner 
Post  is  not  subject  to  the  Board’s  regulation,  it  could  not 
contend  that  the  fee  cap  is  too  high  and  that  the  Board 
should be enjoined from keeping the cap so high.  So Corner 
Post  would  be  precluded  from  suing  even  though  the
allegedly  unlawful  regulation  is  causing  it  monetary
injury.4 

III 
Eliminating vacatur as a remedy would terminate entire 
classes of administrative litigation that have traditionally 
been brought by unregulated parties.5 

One  example  is  the  wide  range  of  administrative  law 
suits  in  which  businesses  target  the  allegedly  unlawful
under-regulation  of  other  businesses,  such  as  their 

—————— 

4 Absent  vacatur,  the  remedy  for  a  regulated  plaintiff  would  not 
automatically  extend  to  other  regulated  parties.    For  example,  if  a 
district  court  issued  an  injunction  that  prevents  the  Board  from
enforcing the fee rule against one bank, the Board would still be able to
enforce the fee rule against other banks.  For those other banks to obtain 
the same relief, they would need to either (i) file similar APA suits and
request  similar  injunctions  or  (ii)  wait  and  see  if  the  fee  rule  is 
temporarily  enjoined  or  held  unlawful  by  either  the  relevant  court  of
appeals or this Court.  In that respect, eliminating the vacatur remedy 
would  delay  relief  for  many  regulated  parties.    That  said,  in  light  of 
vertical  stare  decisis,  the  consequences  for  regulated  parties  of 
eliminating  vacatur  would  not  be  as  severe  as  the  consequences  for 
unregulated  parties.  See  Labrador  v.  Poe,  601  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2024) 
(KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring  in  grant  of  stay)  (slip  op.,  at  8–9);  cf.  W. 
Baude & S. Bray, Proper Parties, Proper Relief, 137 Harv. L. Rev. 153,
183  (2023)  (when  the  Supreme  Court  “holds  a  statute  to  be 
unconstitutional or a rule to be unlawful, it may be as good as vacated”). 
5 This opinion focuses primarily on administrative litigation that arises
under the APA.  But Congress has also enacted special statutory review
provisions that similarly authorize federal courts to “set aside” specific 
agency  actions.  See,  e.g.,  15  U. S. C.  §78y(a)  (orders  of  the  SEC);  16 
U. S. C. §825l(b) (FERC); 28 U. S. C. §2342 (the FCC, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and other agencies).  By arguing that the APA’s use of “set 
aside” does not authorize vacatur, the Government implies that vacatur
is also unavailable under those similar review provisions.