Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

6 

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

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

unlawful,  the  court  must  vacate  that  order.  Around  the 
time  when  Congress  enacted  the  APA,  the  phrase  “set
aside” the agency order meant vacate that order.  See, e.g., 
United  States  v.  L.  A.  Tucker  Truck  Lines,  Inc.,  344  U. S. 
33, 38 (1952).  And because federal courts must “set aside” 
agency  rules  in  the  same  way  that  they  set  aside  agency
orders,  successful  challenges  to  agency  rules  must  award 
the same remedy.  See M. Sohoni, The Power To Vacate a 
Rule,  88  Geo.  Wash.  L. Rev.  1121,  1131–1134  (2020).    In 
short, to “set aside” a rule is to vacate it. 

Longstanding  precedent  reinforces  the  text.    Over  the 
decades,  this  Court  has  affirmed  countless  decisions  that 
vacated  agency  actions,  including  agency  rules.    See,  e.g., 
Department  of  Homeland  Security  v.  Regents  of  Univ.  of 
Cal., 591 U. S. 1, 36, and n. 7 (2020); Whitman v. American 
Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 486 (2001); Board of 
Governors,  FRS  v.  Dimension  Financial  Corp.,  474  U. S. 
361,  364–365  (1986). 
Those  decisions  vacated  the 
challenged  agency  rules  rather  than  merely  providing 
injunctive  relief  that  enjoined  enforcement  of  the  rules 
against the specific plaintiffs.  See, e.g., Regents of Univ. of 
Cal., 591 U. S., at 9 (holding that the rescission of a major 
federal  program  “must  be  vacated”).    And  the  D. C. 
Circuit—which  handles  the  lion’s  share  of  the  country’s
administrative  law  cases—has  likewise  long  recognized
vacatur as the usual relief when a court holds that agency 
rules  are  unlawful.    See,  e.g.,  National  Mining  Assn.  v. 
United  States  Army  Corps  of  Engineers,  145  F. 3d  1399, 
1409  (CADC  1998).  In  the  words  of  the  D. C.  Circuit: 
“When  a  reviewing  court  determines 
that  agency
regulations  are  unlawful,  the  ordinary  result  is  that  the 
rules  are  vacated—not  that  their  application  to  the 
individual  petitioners 
Harmon  v. 
Thornburgh, 878 F. 2d 484, 495, n. 21 (CADC 1989).

is  proscribed.” 

Importantly,  as  Corner  Post’s  lawsuit  shows,  the 
availability of vacatur determines not only the extent of the