Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

15 

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

scholar, the “salient” similarities between appellate review 
and judicial review of agency action concern the standards 
of review—in both types of proceedings, a reviewing court 
engages in a more rigorous review of legal questions and a
more deferential review of factual findings.  T. Merrill, Ar-
ticle III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appel-
late  Review  Model  of  Administrative  Law,  111  Colum. 
L. Rev. 939, 940–941 (2011).  None of that has to do with 
remedies; once again, it concerns a court’s scope of review 
or decisional process.

The States next invoke §706(1) and §705.  The former pro-
vides  that  courts  shall  “compel  agency  action  unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed.”  The latter says courts
“may  issue  all  necessary  and  appropriate  process  to  post-
pone  the  effective  date  of  an  agency  action  or  to  preserve 
status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceed-
ings.”  The States insist that “[i]t would be illogical” for the 
APA to authorize these remedies but not vacatur.  Brief for 
Respondents  40.  Is  it  so  clear,  though,  that  §706(1)  and 
§705 authorize remedies?  Section 706(1) does seem to con-
template  a  remedy.    But  it’s  one  §703  mentions—manda-
tory injunctions.  So §706(1) might not authorize a remedy 
as much as confirm the availability of a traditional remedy
to address agency inaction.  The same could be said about 
§705; it might just confirm courts’ authority to issue tradi-
tional equitable relief pending judicial review.  Cf. Sampson 
v.  Murray,  415  U. S.  61,  69,  n. 15  (1974)  (explaining  that 
§705 was “primarily intended to reflect existing law”).

The States also direct us to scholarship that in turn pur-
ports to identify a few instances of federal courts “setting
aside”  agency  action  in  the  years  leading  up  to  the  APA.
See  Brief  for  Respondents  41;  see  also  Brief  for  State  of 
Florida  as  Amicus  Curiae  17.  It  is  not  obvious,  however, 
that these few cases stand for so much.  In two of them, this 
Court upheld the agency action in question and thus had no
occasion  to  opine  on  appropriate  relief.  See  Houston  v.