Scope of remand without vacatur doctrine
What is Remand Without Vacatur?
When a court reviews an agency decision and finds fault (e.g., procedural error, insufficient explanation), it may remand the case back to the agency for reconsideration or further proceedings. The court has two primary options regarding the agency’s original decision:
Vacatur: The court sets aside the agency’s decision, rendering it null and void until reconsidered.
Remand without vacatur: The court sends the case back but leaves the agency’s decision in place while the agency reevaluates or corrects it.
Why Use Remand Without Vacatur?
Remand without vacatur is often used when:
Vacating the decision would cause disruption or harm: For example, if vacating would leave a regulatory gap affecting public health, safety, or the environment.
The agency decision may be largely valid: The error may be procedural or minor, so the underlying decision is still workable.
Equity and public interest favor maintaining the status quo: Courts weigh fairness to affected parties.
Legal Standards Guiding Remand Without Vacatur
Courts generally consider:
Seriousness of the deficiencies (likelihood of agency success on remand).
The disruptive consequences of vacating the decision.
The Supreme Court and circuit courts have shaped the doctrine, emphasizing a flexible, case-by-case approach.
Key Case Law on Remand Without Vacatur
1. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Facts: NRC issued a license based on incomplete procedures.
Issue: Whether to vacate the license upon finding procedural defects.
Holding: The court remanded without vacatur, emphasizing that if an agency decision has “serious problems” but vacatur would be “disruptive,” remand without vacatur is appropriate.
Significance: This case articulated the two-factor test balancing the seriousness of deficiencies and the consequences of vacatur. It is often cited as foundational in remand without vacatur analysis.
2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Facts: The Commission’s decision was flawed but important for transit system stability.
Holding: The court allowed remand without vacatur, to avoid disruption to the transit system.
Impact: Early example recognizing the practical consequences of vacating agency actions.
3. California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012)
Facts: EPA issued rules under the Clean Air Act with procedural errors.
Issue: Whether the rules should be vacated.
Holding: The court remanded without vacatur because vacating the rule would have caused regulatory chaos and hindered environmental protection.
Significance: Demonstrates application of the doctrine in environmental regulation emphasizing public interest in maintaining regulatory stability.
4. American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 836 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2016)
Facts: EPA’s water quality rule contained errors.
Issue: Whether to vacate the rule or remand without vacatur.
Holding: The court remanded without vacatur because vacatur would have led to regulatory gaps harmful to public health.
Importance: Reinforces that courts consider public interest and potential harm when deciding on vacatur.
5. Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 905 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2018)
Facts: A permit issued by Kentucky’s environmental agency was challenged.
Issue: Whether to vacate a permit after finding legal flaws.
Holding: The court remanded without vacatur, citing disruptive consequences of vacating the permit and the possibility of correcting errors on remand.
Significance: Shows the doctrine applies not only to federal but also state agency decisions when federal courts review.
6. California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) — Expanded
The court emphasized that the severity of the agency’s error must be balanced against the practical effects of vacating the rule, particularly in the context of environmental protections where regulatory gaps could be harmful.
7. Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
Facts: Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules were challenged.
Issue: Whether to vacate rules with procedural defects.
Holding: The court remanded without vacatur, stressing the importance of stability and reliance interests.
Lesson: Shows the doctrine's application outside environmental law, illustrating its broader administrative law relevance.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Allied-Signal v. NRC | Two-factor test balancing seriousness of error and disruption from vacatur |
| Washington Metro v. Holiday Tours | Avoid vacatur to prevent disruption of critical services |
| Cal. Communities Against Toxics v. EPA | Protect regulatory stability and public interest despite errors |
| American Farm Bureau v. EPA | Consider public health impacts before vacating rules |
| Kentucky Waterways v. KY Utilities | Remand without vacatur applies to state agency permits |
| Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC | Reliance interests justify remand without vacatur |
Conclusion
The remand without vacatur doctrine reflects courts’ pragmatic approach to administrative errors, aiming to correct agency actions without unnecessarily disrupting existing regulatory frameworks or causing harm. The doctrine balances the agency’s obligation to comply with law against the interests of stability, reliance, and public welfare.
Allied-Signal remains the leading case articulating the two-factor test widely adopted by federal courts. Courts continue to apply this flexible doctrine across various regulatory contexts including environmental law, public utilities, election law, and more.
RELATED Blog
0 comments