`
`No. 23-40605
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`Texas Medical Association; Tyler Regional Hospital,
`L.L.C., Dr. Adam Corley ,
` Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`v.
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office
`of Personnel Management; United States Department of
`Labor; United States Department of Treasury; Robert
`F. Kennedy, Jr., Secre tary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
`Services, in his official capacity ; Charles Ezell, in his official capacity as
`the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management ; Scott Bessent,
`Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, in his official capacity ; Lori
`Chavez -DeRemer, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, in her
`official capacity ,
` Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
`
`LifeNet, Incorporated; Air Methods Corporation; Rocky
`Mountain Holdings, L.L.C; East Texas Air One, L.L.C ,
` Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`v.
`United States Department of Health and Human
`Services; Office of Personnel Management; United
`States Department of Labor; United States Department
`of Treasury; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secre tary, U.S. Department
`of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity ; Charles Ezell, in
`his official capacity as the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel
`Management ; Scott Bessent, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, in
`his official capacity ; Lori Chavez -DeRemer, Acting Secretary, U.S.
`Department of Labor, in her official capacity ,
` Defendants-Appellants.
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
`
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
`
`The States of Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
`Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and
`Tennessee request leave to file the brief attached to this motion as amici curiae in
`support of neither party. This motion is opposed by the federal government.
`Amici States take no position on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim under the
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), but they have a profound interest in the
`remedies available under the APA, a statute under which they litigate regularly. If
`the Court affirms the judgment of the district court , it should reaffirm that vacatur
`for unlawful agency action is the default remedy in this Circuit.
`This Court’s “default rule is that vacatur is the appropriate remedy” under the
`APA when a party establishes that an administrative agency has acted unlawfully.
`Data Mktg. P’ship, L.P. v U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 45 F.4th 846, 859 (5th Cir. 2022). That
`rule is comfortably grounded in the APA’s text , structure, and history, along with
`precedent, as Justice Kavanaugh forcefully demonstrated just last year. Corner Post,
`Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of Fed. Reserve Sys. , 603 U.S. 799, 826-43 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J.,
`concurring). The federal government offers no persuasive reason for th is Court to
`reconsider that precedent and upend settled practice.
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`The APA provides that a “reviewing court shall … hold unlawful and set aside
`agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be” “arbitrary, capricious, an
`abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`Courts have l ong relied on the “set aside” authority to vacate unlawful agency
`actions. See States’ Amicus 4, 7-8. The federal government suggests that relief for a
`successful APA challenge should be limited to the parties, much like injunctive relief.
`But the federal government’s concern with universal relief is misplaced . Like the
`revocation of a court order, judicial annulment of administrative action may alter a
`party’s conduct, but it does not order anyone to do anything. As such, na tionwide
`vacatur is the only possibility for a successful APA challenge . Fundamentally, the
`federal government’s proposal to tailor va catur to specific parties does not fit the
`nature of that remedy. Vacatur runs against agency action, and as such courts cannot
`modify a vacatur order so that it only affects prevailing plaintiffs. See States’ Amicus
`at 12-14.
`Because the federal government’s position is contrary to text, history, and
`precedent, Amici States urge this court to reject its position and reaffirm that vacatur
`for unlawful agency action continues to be the default remedy in this Circuit.
`The federal government opposes this motion as untimely under Rule 29(b). But
`although Rule 29(a) “governs amicus filings during a court’s initial consideration of
`a case on the merits ” and Rule 29(b) “ governs amicus filings during a court’s
`consideration of whether to grant panel rehearing or rehearing en banc,” neither rule
`expressly addresses the timing of amicus briefs filed after this Court has granted
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`rehearing en banc and requested supplemental briefing. For this reason, despite the
`exemption within Rule 29(b)(2), the Amici States file a motion for leave to file an
`amicus brief after this Court has granted rehearing en banc. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b)
`(providing that “a state may file an amicus brief without the consent of the parties
`or leave of court” but only “during a court’s consideration of whether to grant panel
`rehearing or rehearing en banc”). Indeed, in a currently pending en banc proceeding,
`this Court did not apply Rule 29(b) to an amicus brief filed by the federal government
`at this stage. Compare ECF No. 214-2, Doe v. Planned Parenthood , No. 23-11184
`(5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025) (“ We received your amicus curiae brief on behalf of the
`United States of America. In light of the case proceeding en banc, all parties require
`leave of Court for filing this type of brief. ” (emphasis added)), with Fed. R. App.
`P. 29(b) ( providing that, “during consideration of whether to grant rehearing,”
`“[t]he United States or its officer or agency or a state may file an amicus brief without
`the consent of the parties or leave of court”).
`Despite the absence of an express deadline , Amici States ordinarily file amicus
`briefs within 7 days of the brief of the party being supported. See 5th Cir. R. 29.1. In
`this proceeding, Amici States support neither party but wish to address only the
`purely legal question of the remedy available under the APA and emphasize their
`substantial interest in this issue. Given the importance of the issue to the States and
`the absence of prejudice to either party, Amici States respectfully request that this
`Court allow the filing of the amicus brief.
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Conclusion
`Amici States respectfully request leave to file the brief attached to this motion
`as amicus curiae in support neither party.
`
`
`Ken Paxton
`Attorney General of Texas
`
`Brent Webster
`First Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`Office of the Attorney General
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, Texas 78711-2548
`Tel.: (512) 936-1700
`Fax: (512) 474-2697
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`William R. Peterson
`Solicitor General
`/s/ William F. Cole
`William F. Cole
`Principal Deputy Solicitor General
`William.Cole@oag.texas.gov
`
`Christina Cella
`Special Counsel
`
`Kyle S. Tebo
`Special Counsel
`
`
` Counsel for Amici States
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Additional Counsel:
`
`Stephen J. Cox
`Attorney General of Alaska
`
`Tim Griffin
`Attorney General of Arkansas
`
`James Uthmeier
`Attorney General of Florida
`
`Christopher Carr
`Attorney General of Georgia
`
`Raúl Labrador
`Attorney General of Idaho
`
`Theodore E. Rokita
`Attorney General of Indiana
`
`Brenna Bird
`Attorney General of Iowa
`
`Kris Kobach
`Attorney General of Kansas
`
`Liz Murrill
`Attorney General of Louisiana
`
`Catherine L. Hanaway
`Attorney General of Missouri
`
`Michael T. Hilgers
`Attorney General of Nebraska
`
`Drew H. Wrigley
`Attorney General of North Dakota
`
`Alan Wilson
`Attorney General of South Carolina
`
`Jonathan Skrmetti
`Attorney General of Tennessee
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Certificate of Co nference
`On September 5, 2025, counsel for the State of Texas conferred with counsel for
`the parties . Appellees/Cross-Appellants Air Methods Corporation , Rocky
`Mountain Holdings, LLC , LifeNet, Inc., and East Texas Air One, LLC are
`unopposed. The Texas Medical Association, Tyler Regional Hospital, LLC , and
`Dr. Adam Corley take no position. The federal government parties oppose the filing
`of this amicus brief, requesting inclusion of the following statement : “The federal
`government opposes the filing of an amicus brief as untimely because any amicus
`brief was due on either July 28 (for a brief supporting the federal government or a
`brief that does not support either party) or August 25 (for a brief supporting
`plaintiffs). The federal g overnment also notes that briefing concluded on
`September 2 and oral argument will occur in less than 3 weeks.”
`
`/s/ William F. Cole
`William F. Cole
`Certificate of Service
`On September 9, 2025, this motion was served via CM/ECF on all registered
`counsel and transmitted to the Clerk of the Court. Counsel further certifies that:
`(1) any required privacy redactions have been made in compliance with Fifth Circuit
`Rule 25.2.13; (2) the electronic submission is a n exact copy of the paper document
`in compliance with Fifth Circuit Rule 25.2.1; and (3) the document has been scanned
`with the most recent version of Symantec Endpoint Protection and is free of viruses.
`
`/s/ William F. Cole
`William F. Cole
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Certificate of Compliance
`This motion complies with: (1) the type -volume limitation of Federal Rule of
`Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because it contains 796 words, excluding exempted
`text; and (2) the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the type style
`requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally
`spaced typeface (14-point Equity) using Microsoft Word (the same program used to
`calculate the word count).
`
`/s/ William F. Cole
`William F. Cole
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-40605
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`Texas Medical Association; Tyler Regional Hospital,
`L.L.C., Dr. Adam Corley ,
` Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`v.
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office
`of Personnel Management; United States Department of
`Labor; United States Department of Treasury; Robert
`F. Kennedy, Jr., Secre tary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
`Services, in his official capacity ; Charles Ezell, in his official capacity as
`the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management ; Scott Bessent,
`Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, in his official capacity ; Lori
`Chavez -DeRemer, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, in her
`official capacity ,
` Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
`
`LifeNet, Incorporated; Air Methods Corporation; Rocky
`Mountain Holdings, L.L.C; East Texas Air One, L.L.C ,
` Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`v.
`United States Department of Health and Human
`Services; Office of Personnel Management; United
`States Department of Labor; United States Department
`of Treasury; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secre tary, U.S. Department
`of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity ; Charles Ezell, in
`his official capacity as the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel
`Management ; Scott Bessent, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, in
`his official capacity ; Lori Chavez -DeRemer, Acting Secretary, U.S.
`Department of Labor, in her official capacity ,
` Defendants-Appellants
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
`
`BRIEF FOR THE STATE S OF TEXAS , ALASKA ,
`ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA,
`IOWA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA
`NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH CAROLINA , AND TENNESSEE
`AS AMIC I CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
`
`Ken Paxton
`Attorney General of Texas
`
`Brent Webster
`First Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`Office of the Attorney General
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, Texas 78711-2548
`Tel.: (512) 936-1700
`Fax: (512) 474-2697
`William R. Peterson
`Solicitor General
`
`William F. Cole
`Principal Deputy Solicitor General
`William.Cole@oag.texas.gov
`
`Christina Cella
`Special Counsel
`
`Kyle S. Tebo
`Special Counsel
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Certificate of Interested Persons
`No. 23-40605
`Texas Medical Association; Tyler Regional Hospital,
`L.L.C., Dr. Adam Corley ,
` Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`v.
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office
`of Personnel Management; United States Department of
`Labor; United States Department of Treasury; Robert
`F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
`Services, in his official capacity ; Charles Ezell, in his official capacity as
`the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management ; Scott Bessent,
`Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, in his official capacity ; Lori
`Chavez -DeRemer, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, in her
`official capacity ,
` Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
`Under the fourth sentence of F ifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1, the States, as govern-
`mental entities, need not furnish a certificate of interested persons.
`/s/ William F. Cole
`William F. Cole
`Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Table of Contents
`Page
`
`Certificate of Interested Persons ............................................................................... i
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ iii
`Introduction and Interest of Amici Curiae ............................................................... 1
`Argument ................................................................................................................. 2
`I. The APA Authorizes Vacatur of Unlawful Agency Actions. ...................... 2
`A. Text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the APA’s
`“set aside” language means vacatur. ................................................... 2
`B. The federal government’s interpretation of the APA is
`incorrect. .............................................................................................. 8
`II. Traditional Principles of Equity Do Not Require Vacatur To Be
`Party-Specific. ........................................................................................... 11
`A. Traditional principles of equity do not apply to vacatur, a
`mandatory legal remedy. ..................................................................... 11
`B. Even if vacatur were an equitable remedy, Congress can
`expand the judiciary’s equitable powers by creating a
`nationwide remedy. ............................................................................. 16
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 18
`Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 20
`Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Table of Authorities
`Page(s)
`Cases:
`Bd. of Govs. of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Dimension Fin. Corp.,
`474 U.S. 361 (1986) ............................................................................................. 7
`Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra,
`104 F.4th 930 (5th Cir. 2024) ...................................................................... 11, 12
`Cargill v. Garland,
`57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023) ............................................................................... 16
`Cent. & S. W. Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency,
`220 F.3d 683 (5th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 15
`Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n,
`85 F.4th 760 (5th Cir. 2023)............................................................................... 15
`Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n,
`88 F.4th 1115 (5th Cir. 2023) ....................................................................... 14, 15
`Checkosky v. S.E.C.,
`23 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 3
`Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Govs. of Fed. Reserve Sys.,
`603 U.S. 799 (2024) ........................................................................... 2, 3, 5, 8, 10
`Cream Wipt Food Prods. Co. v. Fed. Sec. Adm’r,
`187 F.2d 789 (3d Cir. 1951) ................................................................................. 4
`Data Mktg. P’Ship, LP v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,
`45 F.4th 846 (5th Cir. 2022) ...................................................................... 2, 7, 12
`Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
`591 U.S. 1 (2020) ................................................................................................ 7
`DIRECTV, Inc. v. Budden,
`420 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 9
`Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valcq,
`16 F.4th 508 (7th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 14
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .......................................................................................... 12
`FCC v. Consumers’ Research,
`145 S. Ct. 2482 (2025) ........................................................................................ 1
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Fischer v. United States,
`603 U.S. 480 (2024) ............................................................................................ 6
`Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`59 F.4th 180 (5th Cir. 2023) ................................................................................ 4
`Franciscan All., Inc. v. Becerra,
`47 F.4th 368 (5th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 12
`Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez,
`142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) ...................................................................................... 14
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc.,
`527 U.S. 308 (1999) ............................................................................................ 17
`Harmon v. Thornburgh,
`878 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 7
`Hart v. Sansom,
`110 U.S. 151 (1884) ............................................................................................. 13
`Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States,
`579 U.S. 162 (2016) ........................................................................................... 12
`La Varre v. Hall,
`42 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1930) .................................................................................. 13
`Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990) ............................................................................................. 8
`Massachusetts v. Mellon,
`262 U.S. 447 (1923) .......................................................................................... 10
`McDonnell v. United States,
`579 U.S. 550 (2016) ............................................................................................. 5
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) ........................................................................................... 14
`Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States,
`44 F. Supp. 688 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) ........................................................................ 3
`Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................................... 13
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.,
`542 U.S. 55 (2004) .............................................................................................. 5
`O.A. v. Trump,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) .................................................................... 16
`Porter v. Warner Holding Co.,
`328 U.S. 395 (1946) ............................................................................................ 17
`S.E.C. v. Stanford Int’l Bank, Ltd.,
`112 F.4th 284 (5th Cir. 2024) ............................................................................. 13
`Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n,
`964 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................. 10
`Shawkee Mfg. Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.,
`322 U.S. 271 (1944) ............................................................................................. 3
`Texas v. Biden,
`20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021) ................................................................... 12, 13, 17
`Texas v. United States,
`126 F.4th 392 (5th Cir. 2025) ............................................................................ 14
`Texas v. United States,
`50 F.4th 498 (5th Cir. 2022) .............................................................................. 15
`Trump v. CASA, Inc.,
`145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025).................................................................................. 11, 14
`United States v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co.,
`293 U.S. 454 (1935) ............................................................................................. 3
`United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc.,
`344 U.S. 33 (1952) ............................................................................................... 3
`United States v. Storer Broad. Co.,
`351 U.S. 192 (1956).............................................................................................. 4
`United States v. Williams,
`553 U.S. 285 (2008) ............................................................................................ 5
`V.I. Tel. Corp. v. FCC,
`444 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 7
`Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
`456 U.S. 305 (1982) ............................................................................................ 17
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Whitman v. Am. Trucking Assns., Inc.,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) ............................................................................................. 7
`Statutes:
`5 U.S.C.:
`§ 702(2) ............................................................................................................. 11
`§ 703 .......................................................................................................... 8, 9, 11
` § 705 ................................................................................................................... 7
`§ 706 ............................................................................................... 4, 5, 11, 12, 15
`§ 706(1) ....................................................................................................... 4, 5, 6
`§ 706(2) .............................................................................. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17
`§ 706(2)(A) ......................................................................................................... 2
`Other Authorities:
`Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of
`Legal Texts (2012) .............................................................................................. 5
`Administrative Procedure Act, S. Doc. No. 79-248 (1946) ..................................... 11
`Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ............................................................. 12, 13
`Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) ..................................................................... 3
`Black’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1933) ....................................................................... 3
`Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (W. Baldwin ed. 1926) .................................................... 3
`H.R. Rep. 79-1980 (1946) ........................................................................................ 11
`1 Howard C. Joyce, A Treatise On The Law Relating To Injunctions
`§ 1 (1909) ........................................................................................................... 13
`Jonathan H. Adler & Christopher J. Walker, Delegation and Time,
`105 Iowa L. Rev. 1931 (2020) .............................................................................. 1
`Jonathan F. Mitchell, The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy,
`104 Va. L. Rev. 933 (2018) ......................................................................... 7, 9, 12
`Mila Sohoni, The Past and Future of Universal Vacatur,
`133 Yale L. J. 2304 (2024) .............................................................................. 8, 11
`Mila Sohoni, The Power to Vacate a Rule,
`88 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1121 (2020) ..................................................................... 9
`Nicholas Bagley, Remedial Restraint in Administrative Law,
`117 Colum. L. Rev. 253 (2017). ....................................................................... 3, 9
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Ronald M. Levin & Mila Sohoni, Universal Remedies, Section 706, and
`the APA, Yale J. Reg. Bull. (July 19, 2020),
`https://tinyurl.com/337xyvmz ........................................................................... 9
`T. Elliot Gaiser, Mathura Sridharan & Nicholas Cordova, The Truth of
`Erasure: Universal Remedies for Universal Agency Actions,
`8/28/2024 U. Chi. L. Rev. Online (2024) .......................................................... 4
`U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative
`Procedure Act (1947) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction and Interest of Amic i Curiae
`The States of Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia , Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
`Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Tennes-
`see respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of neither party . Amici
`States take no position on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim under the Administrative
`Procedure Act, but they have a profound interest in the remedies available under the
`APA, a statute under which they litigate regularly. “Today, the ‘vast majority’ of
`the rules that govern our society are not made by Congress, but by Presidents or
`agencies they struggle to superintend.” FCC v. Consumers’ Research, 145 S. Ct. 2482,
`2538 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (quoting J onathan H. Adler & Christopher J.
`Walker, Delegation and Time , 105 Iowa L. Rev. 1931, 1975 (2020)). The APA is a
`critical tool used by Amici States to curb federal overreach and incursions into state
`sovereignty by executive-branch agencies.
`The federal government’s position in this case, first developed and pressed by
`the Biden Administration, see Brief for the Petitioners 40-44, United States v. Texas,
`No. 22-58 (U.S. Sept. 12, 2022), would drastically alter the scope of relief available
`under the APA and neuter its effectiveness. More importantly, it s position is con-
`trary to text, history, and precedent: When the federal government has violated the
`APA, the statute’s plain text requires that those unlawful actions be “set aside”—a
`remedy that is distinct from injunctive relief , and one that is critical for correctly
`maintaining the balance of power between the states and the federal government. If
`the Court reach es the question of remedy under the APA, it should reaffirm that
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`vacatur for unlawful agency action continues to be the “default remedy” in this Cir-
`cuit.
`Argument
`This Court’s “default rule is that vacatur is the appropriate remedy” under the
`APA when an administrative agency has acted unlawfully. Data Mktg. P’Ship, LP v.
`U.S. Dep’t of Lab. , 45 F.4th 846, 859 (5th Cir. 2022). That rule is comfortably
`grounded in the APA’s text, structure, and history, along with precedent, as Justice
`Kavanaugh forcefully demonstrated just last year. See Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Govs.
`of Fed. Reserve Sys. , 603 U.S. 799, 826 -43 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The
`federal government offers no persuasive reason for the Court to reconsider its own
`precedent and upend settled practice in this Circuit.
`I. The APA Authorizes Vacatur of Unlawful Agency Actions.
`The APA provides that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
`agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be” “arbitrary, capricious, an
`abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`This “set aside” language provides the textual hook for the APA’s long-recognized
`vacatur remedy.
`A. Text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the APA’s “set
`aside” language means vacatur.
`1. Courts have long relied on the “set aside” language to vacate unlawful
`agency actions. The APA’s mandate in section 706(2)(A) that courts “set aside”
`unlawful agency action had a known meaning when Congress enacted the APA.
`Case: 23-40605 Document: 303 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`When Congress enacted the APA, “set aside” meant “to cancel, annul, or re-
`voke.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1612 (3d ed. 1933); see also Black’s Law Dictionary
`1537 (4th ed. 1951) (same); Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1103 (W. Baldwin ed. 1926)
`(“To annul; to make void; as, to set aside an award”) . The APA “reflected a con-
`sensus that judicial review of agency action should be modeled on appellate review
`of trial court judgments.” Nicholas Bagley, Remedial Restraint in Administrative Law,
`117 Colum. L. Rev. 253, 258 (2017). And “[a]t th[e] time [of the APA’s enactment],
`it was common for an appellate court that reversed the decision of a lower court to
`direct that the lower court’s ‘judgment’ be ‘set aside,’ meaning vacated.” Corner
`Post, 603 U.S. at 829 -30 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (citing Shawkee Mfg. Co. v.
`Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 271, 274 (1944)); see also United States v. L.A. Tucker
`Truck Lines, Inc. , 344 U.S. 33, 38 (1 952). “Setting aside means vacating; no other
`meaning is apparent.” Checkosky v. S.E.C., 23 F.3d 452, 491 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (opin-
`ion of Randolph, J.).
`Moreover, “Congress used the phrase ‘set aside’ in many pre-APA statutes that
`plainly contemplated the vacatur of agency actions.” Corner Post, 603 U.S. at 830 &
`n.2 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (collecting statutes). Likewise, in judicial decisions
`reviewing agency action before the APA’s enactment “set aside” was used to mean
`vacate. See, e.g., United States v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 293 U.S. 454, 463-64 (1935)
`(stating that the lower court ’s order “setting aside” railroad regulation “renders it
`void”); Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 688, 690 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) (de-
`scribing the action s at bar “to declare invalid and set aside certain regulations ”)
`(Hand, J.) , rev’d on other grounds , 316 U.S. 447 (1942) . And even the Executive
`Case: 23-40605 Docu