Page:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.pdf/15

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Cite as: 601 U. S. 1 (2023)

15

Jackson, J., concurring in judgment

becomes moot, “the existence of a case or controversy” is at an end, and there is therefore no basis for “the exercise of judicial power.” Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U. S. 301, 306, n. 3 (1964); see also Chapman v. Doe, 598 U. S. –––, ––– (2023) (Jackson, J., dissenting). Mootness thus justifies only dismissal. Barring some other justification, we can go no further.

Vacatur is a different animal entirely. Vacatur is a remedy that erases a judgment that has already been rendered. Here, the Court invokes a so-called Munsingwear vacatur, see ante, at 5–6, a species of vacatur that we have sometimes applied to judgments in civil cases that have “become moot while on [their] way here or pending our decision on the merits,” 340 U. S., at 39.

The precise origins of vacatur, both as a general matter and in its Munsingwear form, are uncertain. In fact, some have described the power of a court to vacate a judgment as “shrouded in ancient lore and mystery.” Advisory Committee’s Note on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 289.^[1] It seems plausible that our authority to vacate a lower court’s judgment under Munsingwear arises from our “supervisory appellate power” to “make such disposition of the case as justice requires.” Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U. S. 671, 676 (1944); see also U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U. S. 18, 21–22 (1994). All agree, however, that vacatur extends from the historical practice of equity, which for centuries has provided courts with the power “to protect all rights and do justice to all concerned.” Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 805, 807

↑ We have sometimes invoked 28 U. S. C. § 2106 as the source of our vacatur authority after mootness arises, see, e. g., Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 712 (2011), but that statute provides only that we may “direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” § 2106. And, of course, that statutory provision cannot confer jurisdiction in excess of Article III, from which the limitation of mootness derives.

[1] We have sometimes invoked 28 U. S. C. § 2106 as the source of our vacatur authority after mootness arises, see, e. g., Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 712 (2011), but that statute provides only that we may “direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” § 2106. And, of course, that statutory provision cannot confer jurisdiction in excess of Article III, from which the limitation of mootness derives.

[1]