Justice Department Asks Supreme Court to Limit Courts' Power to Set Aside Federal Rules Nationwide Under the APA
In a petition filed Oct. 14 in HHS v. Texas Medical Association, the government argues that a court's relief under the Administrative Procedure Act should cover only the parties who sued. Defenders of the current practice call nationwide 'vacatur' a long-standing and necessary remedy.
Nine words at the center of a Supreme Court petition
On Oct. 14, 2026, the Justice Department filed a 29-page petition at the Supreme Court. It's called HHS v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491[1][2]. The petition asks one narrow question. When a federal court finds an agency rule illegal, can it wipe that rule out for the whole country? And if so, when?
Solicitor General D. John Sauer says no, at least not as a matter of course. He writes that nothing in the law's "text, context, or history" gives courts "that 'new and far-reaching remedial power'"[1]. His fallback is softer. Even if nationwide relief is sometimes allowed, he argues, it shouldn't be the "default" remedy[4].
The petition does not ask whether the rules in this case were lawful. It asks only about the remedy[1][2].
A fight over two payment rules
The case began with the No Surprises Act, a law meant to stop surprise medical bills. Several challenges were later combined. The challengers were the Texas Medical Association, a hospital and four air ambulance companies. They attacked rules from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury[1].
The rules explain how to calculate the "qualifying payment amount." That's a benchmark. When an out-of-network provider and an insurer fight over a bill, arbitrators lean on it. A lower benchmark generally favors insurers.
On Aug. 11, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit held that two of those rules conflicted with the Act. It restored a lower court's order vacating them[6][7]. The court found the formula counted "ghost rates," meaning rates for services never provided. It also left out some bonus payments. Industry analysts say that pushed benchmarks down, in insurers' favor[7][15].
Money rides on the remedy. If the rules are vacated for everyone, higher benchmarks apply to every provider. If relief reaches only the plaintiffs, others may be left with the old formula[7][15]. For now, the rules stay vacated nationwide[6][7].
What "set aside" means
The dispute turns on a phrase in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the 1946 law that governs how agencies make rules. Section 706(2) tells courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" illegal agency action[5].
For decades, courts have read "set aside" to mean vacatur. Vacatur erases the rule. It no longer binds anyone, including people who never sued[5]. The government reads the words more narrowly. On its view, a court should simply refuse to apply the rule to the challengers[3][5].
Each reading has a practical logic. Challengers say a rule found illegal is illegal for everyone, because the court is ruling on the government's own act, not restraining a person. The government says the words tell a court what to do in the case in front of it. It says they don't create a power to cancel a rule nationwide.
The back door and the old road
Last year's decision in Trump v. CASA shapes the whole fight. In June 2025, the Supreme Court held that federal courts generally lack power to issue universal injunctions, which are orders blocking a policy everywhere. It did not decide whether the APA allows universal vacatur[8][16].
The government calls vacatur a back door to the same result. Its structural argument runs like this. A challenger can file in the district it expects to be friendliest. One win there ends the rule everywhere. Other courts never weigh in, and the government must win every case to keep its rule[9][8].
Defenders of vacatur say it's a different and much older remedy. Scholars have traced "set aside" to earlier law, where it meant annulling the act itself[13][14]. They also make a practical point. Without vacatur, every affected doctor, small business or state would need its own lawsuit. Small players often can't afford one.
Justice Kavanaugh added another point in 2024. Some people harmed by a rule aren't regulated by it directly. For them, vacatur may be the only workable relief[11]. CASA left class actions open as another route[8][16].
A Court already divided
The justices have written about this before, and they don't agree. In United States v. Texas in 2023, Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the judgment. Justice Thomas joined it, and Justice Barrett joined in part. It questioned whether the APA lets courts vacate agency action at all[10]. In 2024, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence in Corner Post defending vacatur[11].
Then there's Chief Justice Roberts. Critics of the petition lean on his words. In 2022, the Biden administration made a similar argument. Roberts called it "fairly radical." He joked that judges on the D.C. Circuit, the main court for agency cases, vacate rules "five times before breakfast." Kavanaugh called the argument "far-reaching"[3][5].
Those remarks are real. But they answered the Biden administration's 2022 version of the argument, not this petition[5]. That matters for the government's incentive too. Every administration wants to lose as little as possible when one court rules against it. Both the Biden and Trump Justice Departments have pressed this position, which suggests it follows the institution, not the party[3][5].
The Hill reports that the government needs one more vote. If the three liberal justices oppose it, it would need Roberts or Kavanaugh[3]. This is The Hill's count, and I couldn't confirm it independently.
Who is telling the story how
Coverage so far comes mostly from legal specialists and law firms. Searches turned up no major right-leaning or left-leaning national outlets, and no non-Western ones. That fits a petition the Court hasn't yet agreed to hear.
SCOTUSblog used neutral verbs and quoted the petition directly[1]. Law360 framed the case as a test of the judiciary's power to check executive agencies[4]. The Hill called the petition the administration's "next move to rein in judges' authority to block the president's agenda." It also noted the Biden-era origin of the argument[3].
The Hoosier Enquirer, a small Indiana outlet, ran the headline "One Judge, Whole Country." It described the request as closing "the back door," which is the government's own argument told as narration[9]. Sidley Austin, which represents the medical association, celebrated the August ruling as the physicians' "sixth" win[12]. Polsinelli's client alert repeated the court's view that the rules favored insurers, without the government's defense of the formula[7].
The Court hasn't acted on the petition. First it must decide whether to hear the case at all. If it does, the ruling would govern every future challenge to a federal rule, whichever party wrote the rule[1][16]. If it declines, vacatur stays the main route to nationwide relief after CASA.
Summary
On Oct. 14, 2026, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to decide whether federal judges may wipe out a federal agency's rule for the whole country[1][2]. The case is Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491[2]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that a court can give relief only to the people who sued[1][3]. His 29-page petition says nothing in the law's "text, context, or history" gives courts "that 'new and far-reaching remedial power'"[1]. As a fallback, the government argues that even if nationwide relief is sometimes allowed, it should not be the "default" remedy[4].
The dispute turns on one phrase. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the 1946 law that governs how agencies make rules, tells courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" illegal agency actions[5]. For decades, courts have read "set aside" to mean vacatur. Vacatur erases the rule, so it no longer binds anyone, not just the parties who sued[5]. The government reads "set aside" more narrowly. On its reading, a court should only refuse to apply the rule to the challengers[3][5]. The petition grows out of a fight over the No Surprises Act, a law against surprise medical bills. There, the full Fifth Circuit restored a lower court's vacatur of two rules on how insurers' benchmark payment rates are calculated[1][6][7].
In its 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court largely ended nationwide injunctions (court orders blocking a policy everywhere)[8]. The administration and its supporters call APA vacatur a back door for the same kind of nationwide relief[9]. Defenders of vacatur say it is a different, much older remedy. They point to Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2022, when the Biden administration made a similar argument, he called it "fairly radical" and joked that judges on his old court vacate rules "five times before breakfast"[5][3]. In 2023, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Barrett questioned vacatur in whole or in part[10]. In 2024, Justice Kavanaugh wrote in its defense[11]. The Court has not yet decided whether to take the case.
The Event
On Oct. 14, 2026, the Supreme Court docketed a 29-page petition from Solicitor General D. John Sauer in HHS v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491[1][2]. The petition asks whether 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act lets courts universally vacate agency rules held unlawful, and if so, when[2][4]. It seeks review of the Fifth Circuit's Aug. 11, 2026 en banc decision. That decision reinstated a district court's vacatur of two No Surprises Act regulations on the 'qualifying payment amount'[6][7].
Undisputed Facts
- The Justice Department's petition in HHS v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491, was docketed at the Supreme Court on Oct. 14, 2026[1][2].
- The case began as several challenges, later combined, to rules from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury carrying out parts of the No Surprises Act. The challengers were the Texas Medical Association, a hospital and four air ambulance companies[1].
- On Aug. 11, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit held that two rules on calculating the 'qualifying payment amount' conflicted with the No Surprises Act. It reinstated the district court's vacatur of those rules[6][7].
- Section 706(2) of the APA directs reviewing courts to 'hold unlawful and set aside' agency action found unlawful[5].
- In Trump v. CASA (June 2025), the Supreme Court held that federal courts generally lack authority to issue universal injunctions. That ruling did not decide whether the APA allows universal vacatur[8][16].
- In United States v. Texas (2023), Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas and, in part, Justice Barrett, questioning whether the APA lets courts vacate agency action[10]. In Corner Post (2024), Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence defending vacatur under the APA[11].
- The Biden administration made a similar argument against vacatur in 2022. Chief Justice Roberts called it 'fairly radical,' and Justice Kavanaugh called it 'far-reaching'[3][5].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Executive interest in limiting remedies
- Every administration wants to lose as little as possible when one court rules against it. Both the Biden and Trump Justice Departments have argued that APA relief should be limited to the parties. That shows the position follows the institution, not the party[3][5].
- Challengers need a nationwide remedy after CASA
- With nationwide injunctions largely gone, vacatur and class actions are the main paths left to nationwide relief. That makes vacatur the next battleground for challengers of any political leaning[16][8].
- Money at stake in the underlying case
- The qualifying payment amount is a benchmark used when out-of-network providers and insurers fight over payment. The formula the Fifth Circuit struck down pushed that benchmark lower. So whether vacatur applies to all providers or only the plaintiffs shifts money between providers and insurers[7][15].
Material realityFor now, the two payment-formula rules stay vacated nationwide under the Fifth Circuit's ruling[6][7]. The petition asks the Court only about the remedy, not about whether the rules were lawful[1][2]. The Court has not acted on the petition. The justices' past writings suggest they are split. Three have questioned vacatur[10]. Kavanaugh has defended it[11]. Roberts called the narrower view 'fairly radical' in 2022[5]. Whatever the Court does will shape every future lawsuit over a federal rule, regardless of which party issued it[16].
Narrative as a weaponThe administration and sympathetic outlets want readers to see vacatur as a single unelected judge overriding national policy, a loophole left after CASA[9][1]. Critics and defenders of vacatur want readers to see the petition as one more step in the administration's effort to escape judicial checks. They lean heavily on Roberts' 'fairly radical' quote[3]. That quote is real, but it answered the Biden administration's version of this argument in 2022, not this petition[5]. The provider plaintiffs' lawyers frame the case as a string of wins against insurer-friendly rules[12]. Coverage so far comes almost entirely from legal trade outlets and law firms, each with its own clients and audiences. Little of it explains the mechanism well enough for readers to weigh both sides.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe government's case rests on text and history. It argues 'set aside' tells a court what to do with an unlawful rule in the case in front of it: disregard it for the parties. It says the word does not create a power to cancel the rule for every person in the country. The petition says nothing in the APA's 'text, context, or history' supports that 'new and far-reaching remedial power'[1]. The government's second argument is about structure. CASA held that judges may not grant nationwide injunctions. So, the government says, letting any one district judge grant the same nationwide result by calling it 'vacatur' would undo CASA[9][8]. Here is how that works in practice. A challenger can file suit in whichever district it expects to be friendliest. One win there ends the rule everywhere. Meanwhile, other courts never get to weigh in, and the government has to win every case to keep its rule. Third, the petition argues that even if vacatur is sometimes allowed, it should not be the 'default' remedy, which is what the Fifth Circuit treated it as[4][2].
WhyLimiting vacatur would let the administration keep enforcing its rules against everyone who has not sued, even after a loss in one court. This is an executive-branch interest more than a partisan one. The Biden administration pressed a similar argument in 2022[3][5]. The Hill reports the administration is trying to build a majority. That would mean adding Roberts or Kavanaugh to the three justices already sympathetic[3].
Impact on themA win would greatly reduce how much a single lower-court loss can disrupt a federal program, whichever party holds the White House. A loss, or a refusal to hear the case, would leave vacatur as the main path to nationwide relief after CASA[16][8]. In this case, the government's rules on how benchmark payments are calculated stay vacated unless the Court steps in[6].
Frames it asTheir first argument is simple: a rule a court has found illegal is illegal for everyone. When a court vacates a rule, it is not stopping a person. It is ruling on the government's own act. Leaving that act on the books for people who did not sue would mean an agency could keep enforcing a rule judged unlawful. Second, they say vacatur is old, settled practice. Roberts said judges on the D.C. Circuit, the main court for agency cases, vacate rules 'five times before breakfast'[5]. Kavanaugh's Corner Post concurrence treats vacatur as the ordinary APA remedy[11]. Scholars have also traced 'set aside' to earlier law, where it meant annulling the act itself[13][14]. Third, they make a practical point. Without vacatur, every affected doctor, small business or state would need to file its own lawsuit against the same rule. Small players often cannot afford that. Kavanaugh also argued that some people harmed by a rule are not regulated by it directly. For them, vacatur may be the only workable relief[11].
WhyThe medical challengers want the payment-formula rules gone for all out-of-network providers, not only the named plaintiffs. Their lawyers at Sidley describe the August ruling as the physicians' 'sixth' win in No Surprises Act litigation[12]. More broadly, groups on both left and right rely on vacatur. For example, Texas and Louisiana got Biden-era immigration enforcement guidelines vacated in the case behind United States v. Texas[10].
Impact on themIf the government wins, a court victory might protect only the parties who sued. Others would need their own lawsuits, a class action, or a different remedy. CASA left class actions open as an option[8][16]. In this case, the Fifth Circuit found that the vacated rules counted 'ghost rates' (rates for services never provided) and left out some bonus payments. Industry analysts say that lowered the benchmark rates arbitrators use, which favored insurers. So the remedy decides whether higher benchmarks apply to every provider or only to the challengers[7][15].
Frames it asThe justices have already taken positions on this, and they disagree. Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Barrett, questioned 'the essential premise' that the APA empowers courts to vacate agency action. Their view is that traditional limits on court remedies keep relief to the parties[10][11]. Kavanaugh treats vacatur as a normal remedy that existed before modern nationwide injunctions[11]. Roberts called the narrower view 'fairly radical' and 'inconsistent' with established APA practice[5].
WhyThe Court has to square CASA's limit on nationwide relief with decades of lower-court practice. It also has to manage how much power single district judges hold over national policy[8][16].
Impact on themAccording to The Hill's count, the government needs Roberts or Kavanaugh to win if the three liberal justices oppose it[3]. The Court must first decide whether to hear the case at all. Taking it would make the ruling a national rule for every future challenge to an agency rule[1].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCOTUSblog | U.S. center (legal specialist) | 1 | Trump administration asks justices to determine courts' ability to vacate federal agency actions | Neutral verbs ('asks,' 'determine'). It explains the No Surprises Act background and quotes the petition directly, with no characterization. Its only slip is calling the No Surprises Act 'a 2022 law'; 2022 is when its protections took effect. |
| Law360 | U.S. center (legal trade) | 2 | Trump Admin. Urges High Court To Curb APA Rule Vacatur | The headline is straight. The body casts the case as a 'major test of the judiciary's authority to check executive agency power,' which puts it in checks-and-balances terms rather than the government's statutory-text terms. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | Trump administration asks Supreme Court to address nationwide rulings | Calls the petition the 'next move to rein in judges' authority to block the president's agenda' and says Roberts 'slapped it down.' It does include the Biden-era origin of the argument and a straight vote count. |
| Polsinelli | U.S. law firm client alert (health-care industry audience) | 3 | En Banc Fifth Circuit Rejects Key QPA Rules in TMA III | Mostly descriptive. It repeats the court's view that the rules deflated benchmarks 'in favor of insurers' without giving the insurers' or government's defense of the formula. |
| Hoosier Enquirer | U.S. regional digital outlet (orientation not established); framing tracks the administration | 5 | One Judge, Whole Country: Trump DOJ Asks SCOTUS to End Universal Agency Vacatur | The headline adopts the government's 'one judge' framing. It describes the request as closing 'the back door' left open after CASA, which is the petitioner's argument told as narration. |
| Sidley Austin | Counsel for the Texas Medical Association (advocate) | 6 | For the Sixth Time, Sidley-Represented Physicians Prevail in No Surprises Act Challenge | A law-firm press release about the August en banc ruling. It celebrates a client win by counting victories. Readers should treat it as one side's account, not reporting. |
References
- Trump administration asks justices to determine courts' ability to vacate federal agency actions — SCOTUSblog · Legal-specialist news site focused on the Supreme Court; generally straight reporting
- Petition for a writ of certiorari, HHS v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491 — Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing by the Office of the Solicitor General) · Primary source; advocacy document of the petitioner (the federal government)
- Trump administration asks Supreme Court to address nationwide rulings — The Hill · Washington-focused commercial outlet (Nexstar-owned); center
- Trump Admin. Urges High Court To Curb APA Rule Vacatur — Law360 · Subscription legal trade publication (LexisNexis-owned); center
- "Set Aside" and Vacatur Under the Administrative Procedure Act — Congressional Research Service · Nonpartisan legislative-branch research agency serving Congress
- Texas Medical Association v. HHS, No. 23-40605 (5th Cir. en banc), opinion of Aug. 11, 2026 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (via Georgetown Litigation Tracker) · Primary source (court opinion); hosted by a Georgetown Law project tracking health-law litigation
- En Banc Fifth Circuit Rejects Key QPA Rules in TMA III — Polsinelli · Law firm client alert; health-care industry clientele
- Trump v. CASA — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; used here for case holding and date
- One Judge, Whole Country: Trump DOJ Asks SCOTUS to End Universal Agency Vacatur — Hoosier Enquirer · Small Indiana digital outlet; orientation not established; framing on this story tracks the administration
- United States v. Texas (2023) — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; used here for the case background and the Gorsuch concurrence
- Corner Post and the Statute of Limitations for Administrative Procedure Act Claims — Congressional Research Service · Nonpartisan legislative-branch research agency serving Congress
- For the Sixth Time, Sidley-Represented Physicians Prevail in No Surprises Act Challenge — Sidley Austin · Law firm representing the Texas Medical Association; advocate press release
- The Past and Future of Universal Vacatur — Yale Law Journal · Student-edited academic law journal; this piece defends the historical basis of vacatur
- A Remedy Inherited: State Law, Universal Vacatur, and the Meaning of "Set Aside" — Stanford Law Review Online · Student-edited academic law journal; scholarly argument on the meaning of 'set aside'
- No Surprises Here: Providers Win Again in No Surprises Act TMA III Litigation — National Law Review · Publishes law-firm commentary; provider-side author framing
- Universal Vacatur in Transition: How Courts Are Interpreting CASA and the APA — Blank Rome LLP · Law firm client alert; corporate litigation clientele