Vacatur of unlawful rules
🔷 Vacatur of Unlawful Rules
🔹 What is Vacatur?
Vacatur is a legal remedy in which a court nullifies or sets aside an agency rule that it finds to be unlawful. Once a rule is vacated:
It has no legal effect.
It is treated as if it had never been issued.
The agency may be required to restart the rulemaking process.
Vacatur is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which allows courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency actions that are:
Arbitrary or capricious.
Not in accordance with law.
In excess of statutory jurisdiction or authority.
Without observance of required procedure.
🔹 When Do Courts Use Vacatur?
Courts consider two main factors (from Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1993):
Seriousness of the Rule’s Deficiency: Is the rule fatally flawed?
Disruptive Consequences of Vacatur: Would vacating the rule cause major harm?
Sometimes, courts remand without vacatur (leave the rule in place temporarily) to avoid significant disruption. But where the defects are serious, vacatur is the norm.
🔷 Key Cases on Vacatur of Unlawful Rules
1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Facts:
The NHTSA rescinded a requirement for passive restraints (like airbags) in cars without a sufficient explanation.
Holding:
The Supreme Court found the rescission arbitrary and capricious.
Agency failed to consider important factors and provide a reasoned analysis.
Remedy:
Vacatur of the rescission; the rule was reinstated.
Significance:
Landmark case on the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Established that failure to provide a reasoned explanation justifies vacatur.
2. United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp. (2d Cir. 1977)
Citation: 568 F.2d 240
Facts:
The FDA issued a fish processing rule without revealing key scientific data or responding to significant public comments.
Holding:
The agency failed to comply with notice-and-comment requirements.
Remedy:
Court vacated the rule for violating procedural requirements under the APA.
Significance:
Reinforced importance of transparency and public participation.
Vacatur used to correct procedural violations.
3. Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Citation: 898 F.2d 183
Facts:
EPA issued a rule under the Clean Water Act but failed to justify how it aligned with statutory goals.
Holding:
The court found the rule arbitrary and capricious, lacking reasoned justification.
Remedy:
The court vacated the rule.
Significance:
Showed that policy choices must be explained in accordance with statutory intent.
Vacatur appropriate when core statutory purposes are ignored.
4. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Citation: 988 F.2d 146
Facts:
NRC issued a rule with procedural and analytical flaws.
Holding:
Court developed a two-factor test to decide whether to vacate:
Seriousness of the rule’s deficiencies.
Disruptive consequences of vacating it.
Remedy:
Rule remanded without vacatur, but this test now guides all vacatur analysis.
Significance:
Provided the framework for courts deciding between vacatur and remand.
Not all unlawful rules are vacated immediately—consequences matter.
5. NRDC v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2002)
Citation: 275 F.3d 1169
Facts:
EPA issued Clean Air Act rules but failed to follow statutory mandates.
Holding:
The court held the rule unlawful and vacated it entirely, finding the errors substantial.
Significance:
Demonstrated that serious statutory violations require vacatur.
Courts won't hesitate to vacate rules that exceed congressional authority.
6. California v. Texas (Northern District of California, 2020)
Facts:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued rules on religious exemptions from contraceptive mandates without proper legal justification.
Holding:
Court found the rule was not adequately justified and violated APA.
Remedy:
Issued a nationwide vacatur and injunction.
Significance:
Courts can issue broad vacatur where the rule has national effect.
Reflects court’s willingness to fully eliminate defective rules, especially in health and civil rights areas.
7. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (D.C. Cir. 2017)
Citation: 862 F.3d 1
Facts:
EPA attempted to delay implementation of methane regulations without undergoing proper rulemaking.
Holding:
The court found the delay was effectively a new rule, issued without following APA procedures.
Remedy:
Vacated the attempted delay.
Significance:
Agencies cannot avoid APA requirements by labeling actions as “delays” or “guidance”.
Vacatur ensures regulatory accountability.
🔷 Summary Table: When Courts Apply Vacatur
| Case | Deficiency in Rule | Remedy | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Farm (1983) | Arbitrary rescission | Vacatur | Lack of explanation requires setting aside rule |
| Nova Scotia Food (1977) | Procedural violations (APA) | Vacatur | Must disclose basis of rule during notice & comment |
| EDF v. EPA (1989) | No statutory justification | Vacatur | Must align with statutory objectives |
| Allied-Signal (1993) | Procedural deficiency, mild impact | Remand without vacatur | Courts may preserve rule if disruption is great |
| NRDC v. EPA (2002) | Serious legal violations | Vacatur | Core statutory breaches require full vacatur |
| California v. HHS (2020) | Inadequate justification | Nationwide vacatur | Courts may vacate unlawful rules with broad effect |
| Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (2017) | Rule disguised as delay | Vacatur | APA cannot be circumvented through terminology |
🔷 Final Thoughts
🛡️ Courts Apply Vacatur When:
Agency fails to follow APA procedures.
Rule is arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.
Rule exceeds statutory authority.
Agency fails to consider relevant data or explain decisions.
⚖️ Courts May Remand Without Vacatur When:
The error is minor or fixable.
Vacatur would cause major disruption.
Agency is likely to correct the issue promptly.
🔷 Conclusion
Vacatur is the primary judicial remedy against unlawful agency rules. It ensures:
Agencies follow the law and procedures.
Unlawful rules don’t continue to govern public or private conduct.
Courts act as a check on administrative overreach.
However, courts also consider practical consequences, meaning not every unlawful rule is vacated immediately. The balance between legal integrity and real-world disruption is central to vacatur jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments