Remedies against unlawful rulemaking
🔷 Remedies Against Unlawful Rulemaking
🔹 What Is Unlawful Rulemaking?
An agency engages in unlawful rulemaking when it:
Exceeds statutory authority (acts ultra vires).
Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), especially regarding notice-and-comment.
Issues rules that are arbitrary, capricious, or not based on evidence.
Fails to explain or justify the rule adequately.
Violates constitutional principles, such as due process or separation of powers.
🔹 Legal Framework for Remedies
The primary statutory framework is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–706, particularly:
§ 553 – Procedures for notice-and-comment rulemaking.
§ 706 – Scope of judicial review:
A reviewing court shall:
Hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be:
Arbitrary or capricious.
In excess of statutory authority.
Without observance of procedure required by law.
Contrary to constitutional rights.
🔷 Judicial Remedies Against Unlawful Rulemaking
1. Vacatur
– The most common remedy. The court nullifies the rule as though it never existed.
2. Remand Without Vacatur
– The court sends the rule back to the agency without immediately nullifying it, allowing the agency to correct the defect.
3. Injunction
– A court may prevent an agency from enforcing an unlawful rule.
4. Declaratory Judgment
– Court declares the agency action unlawful, often accompanied by vacatur.
🔷 Key Cases Demonstrating Remedies Against Unlawful Rulemaking
1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Facts:
NHTSA rescinded a rule requiring passive restraints (like airbags) in vehicles.
It did so without sufficient analysis or explanation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the rescission arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Agency failed to consider all relevant factors and provide a reasoned basis.
Remedy:
Vacatur of the rescission.
Rule remained in effect; agency had to justify or revise.
Significance:
Established strong precedent for judicial scrutiny of agency reasoning.
Courts can invalidate rules lacking adequate rationale.
2. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Citation: 549 U.S. 497
Facts:
EPA refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
EPA claimed it lacked authority under the Clean Air Act.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Agency failed to properly interpret its statutory authority.
Remedy:
Remand to EPA with instruction to reconsider its authority.
Significance:
Reinforced that agencies cannot avoid statutory duties.
Court used remand as a corrective remedy without vacatur.
3. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)
Citation: 575 U.S. 92
Facts:
The Department of Labor changed its interpretation of a rule without going through notice-and-comment.
Judgment:
The Court held that interpretive rules do not require notice-and-comment.
But it clarified limits of agency discretion.
Remedy:
No direct remedy in this case, but clarified that courts may set aside interpretive rules that go beyond interpretation and function as legislative rules.
Significance:
Reaffirmed APA procedural rules and warned against substantive rule changes disguised as interpretation.
4. United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp. (2d Cir. 1977)
Citation: 568 F.2d 240
Facts:
FDA promulgated a rule on fish processing without responding to significant comments and without disclosing scientific data relied upon.
Judgment:
Rule was invalidated for failure to follow notice-and-comment requirements properly.
Remedy:
Vacatur of the rule.
Agency had to redo the rulemaking process.
Significance:
Established that agencies must meaningfully respond to public comments.
Courts will strike down rules for procedural failures.
5. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014)
Citation: 573 U.S. 302
Facts:
EPA tried to extend permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act to small emitters.
EPA's interpretation created burdens beyond what Congress intended.
Judgment:
The Court held EPA exceeded its statutory authority.
Agencies cannot rewrite clear statutory terms.
Remedy:
Partial vacatur of the overbroad rule.
Only large emitters could be regulated.
Significance:
Reinforced limits on agency creativity in interpreting statutes.
Remedies targeted the offending part of the rule.
6. National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Ass’n v. Sullivan (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Citation: 979 F.2d 227
Facts:
HHS issued rules interpreting Title X funding requirements without notice-and-comment.
Judgment:
Court found the rule was substantive, not interpretive.
Required APA compliance.
Remedy:
Vacatur and remand.
Significance:
Differentiated between substantive and interpretive rules.
Agencies must follow APA when issuing new substantive rules.
7. California v. Health and Human Services (9th Cir. 2020)
Facts:
HHS issued a religious exemption to contraceptive coverage under the ACA without proper justification.
Judgment:
The court ruled the rule was arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient justification for policy reversal.
Remedy:
Nationwide injunction and vacatur.
Significance:
Reinforced that policy reversals must be reasoned, not ideological.
Courts can apply broad remedies where public health is impacted.
🔷 Summary Table of Key Remedies and Case Support
| Remedy | Description | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Vacatur | Rule is nullified and removed. | State Farm, Nova Scotia, Sullivan |
| Remand (with or w/o vacatur) | Rule is sent back for correction, possibly still in effect. | Massachusetts v. EPA |
| Injunction | Court prohibits enforcement of the rule. | California v. HHS |
| Declaratory Judgment | Court declares rule unlawful; often accompanies vacatur. | Often implied in APA rulings |
🔷 Key Principles from These Cases
Courts enforce procedural compliance: Failure to follow APA procedures leads to invalidation.
Substance matters: Rules must be supported by reasoned analysis and evidence.
Statutory boundaries must be respected: Agencies cannot expand authority beyond congressional intent.
Agencies are accountable: Judicial review under § 706 APA ensures checks and balances.
🔷 Conclusion
The remedies for unlawful rulemaking serve to maintain transparency, legality, and accountability in the regulatory process. Courts have a robust toolkit to respond when agencies:
Act beyond their powers,
Fail to follow required procedures,
Or impose arbitrary rules.
These remedies help preserve the rule of law and ensure that public interests and due process are protected in the rulemaking process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments