The administration has asked the Supreme Court to clarify when federal courts may vacate federal agency actions, urging the justices to limit lower courts’ authority to nullify rules in full.
In a 29-page petition filed and docketed Wednesday, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that neither the text, context, nor history of the statute governing administrative agencies authorizes courts to wield what he described as a new and far-reaching remedial power. He asked the court to define the boundaries of that authority.
Vacate federal agency actions at issue in No Surprises Act dispute
The case stems from consolidated challenges to regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury to implement parts of the No Surprises Act, a 2022 law intended to shield patients from unexpected medical bills, particularly in emergencies and from out-of-network providers. A federal district court in Texas ruled for the challengers, which include the Texas Medical Association, a hospital, and four air ambulance companies. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later reversed in part.
The full 5th Circuit subsequently vacated some provisions. In an opinion joined by nine judges, the court rejected the government’s warning that this remedy could generate practical problems, including potential gaps in patient protections while agencies revise the rules.
Petition invokes recent ruling on nationwide injunctions
The administration asked the Supreme Court on Oct. 14 to review the 5th Circuit’s decision. Sauer pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which held that federal courts lack authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions barring enforcement of a policy across the country. He said the court in that case emphasized the equitable tradition, under which courts may grant complete relief to the parties before them but generally may not extend relief beyond those parties.
Sauer argued that the same principle applies when courts vacate rules. Under the 5th Circuit’s approach, he said, a handful of plaintiffs can effectively erase regulations for everyone.
Sauer also contended that broad vacatur, like universal injunctions, encourages forum shopping and confers nationwide effect on district court orders that is usually reserved for Supreme Court precedent. He said the practice burdens the judiciary as well, because nationwide vacatur often forces the government to seek emergency relief that requires courts to confront complex legal questions on expedited timelines and without full briefing.
The challengers’ response is due Nov. 13, although that deadline could be extended.