Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Veneman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that remand without vacatur was warranted where the rule had already gone into effect and, as such “[t]he egg ha[d] been scrambled and there [was] no apparent way to restore the status quo ante.”
• holding that the notice-and-comment requirement “would be eviscerated” if agency could bypass it without good cause simply because plaintiffs “cannot identify any additional arguments they would have made in a notice-and-comment procedure that they did not make” informally
• observing that \[w]e have previously remanded without vacating when the agency failed to follow notice-and-comment procedures\
• finding that vacatur was not appropriate where agricultural program had already been launched and crops had been plowed under
• requiring that plaintiffs alleging procedural injuries “show that the procedural step was connected to the substantive result”
• requiring that 3 plaintiffs alleging procedural injuries “show that the procedural step was connected to the 4 substantive result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).