司法部请最高法院限制法官全国撤销联邦法规的权力：案件源于意外医疗账单规则之争
美国司法部已请求最高法院审理卫生与公众服务部诉德州医疗协会案（案卷号 26-491），核心问题是：联邦法官认定一项联邦法规违法后，能否把这项法规对全国所有人一并撤销，而不只是让起诉的那几方免受约束。
司法部 10 月 14 日提交的调卷请愿书把问题写得很明确：《行政程序法》第 706 条第 2 款是否授权法院对被认定违法的机构法规作出「普遍撤销」，如果授权，又应在什么情形下作出。司法部在请愿书中主张，最高法院应让下级法院「回归其在《行政程序法》下的恰当角色」。
案件源于《无意外法案》的实施细则。这部在特朗普第一任期签署的法律旨在限制患者收到网络外医疗服务的天价意外账单。德州医疗协会、Tyler Regional Hospital、LifeNet、Air Methods 等医疗服务方起诉挑战其中部分规则，认为规则违法压低了支付争议中的报销。第五巡回上诉法院全席法庭今年 8 月 11 日维持了对部分规则的全国范围撤销，判决见 188 F.4th 359。
据路透社报道，政府此次上诉并不挑战第五巡回法院关于相关规则违法的认定，争的只是救济的范围：司法部认为，法院的救济原则上应只及于实际起诉的当事人，而不是把一项法规对所有人整体抹去。
这场争论紧接 2025 年的先例。最高法院在 2025 年 6 月 27 日的 Trump v. CASA 案中限制了联邦法官发布全国性禁令的权力，但没有处理《行政程序法》下的「撤销」这一另一项工具。此次请愿正是要把当年的限制延伸到撤销权上。
程序上，被告方的答复期限原为 11 月 13 日，经最高法院书记官 10 月 29 日批准，已延至 12 月 14 日。11 月 13 日，新公民自由联盟提交了一份不偏向任何一方的法庭之友意见，敦促大法官拒绝受理此案，理由包括：各巡回法院在这一问题上并无分歧需要最高法院调和。
截至 11 月 15 日，最高法院尚未决定是否受理。据路透社报道，大法官们预计在明年年初考虑是否接案；此案结果可能影响移民、医疗、环境等领域针对联邦政策的诉讼中，法院一份判决能走多远。
（来源：美国最高法院）
Justice Department Asks Supreme Court to Limit Judges' Power to Vacate Federal Rules Nationwide
The U.S. Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to hear Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, No. 26-491, a case that asks whether a federal judge who finds an agency rule unlawful may vacate that rule for everyone nationwide, rather than shielding only the parties who sued.
In its petition for certiorari, filed on October 14, the Justice Department framed the question directly: whether Section 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes courts to enter universal vacatur of agency rules they have held unlawful and, if so, in what circumstances. The department argued in the petition that the Supreme Court should return the lower courts to their proper role under the APA.
The case grows out of rules implementing the No Surprises Act, the law signed during President Donald Trump's first term to curb unexpected out-of-network medical bills. The Texas Medical Association, Tyler Regional Hospital, LifeNet, Air Methods and other providers challenged parts of the rules, arguing they unlawfully reduced reimbursements in payment disputes. On August 11, 2026, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the nationwide invalidation of portions of the rules, in a decision reported at 188 F.4th 359.
According to Reuters, the administration's appeal does not challenge the Fifth Circuit's holding that the provisions were unlawful. It contests only the scope of the remedy: the Justice Department argues that relief should generally run only to the parties who actually sued, rather than wiping a rule off the books for everyone.
The dispute follows a 2025 precedent. In Trump v. CASA, decided on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court restricted federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions, but left untouched the separate tool of vacatur under the APA. The new petition seeks to extend that constraint to vacatur.
On procedure, the respondents' response was originally due November 13; the Clerk granted an extension on October 29, moving the deadline to December 14. On November 13, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus brief supporting neither party, urging the justices to deny review, arguing in part that no circuit split exists for the Court to resolve.
As of November 15, the Supreme Court has not decided whether to take the case. According to Reuters, the justices are expected to consider the petition early next year, and the outcome could shape how far a single court's ruling can reach in challenges to federal policies on immigration, healthcare, the environment and other fields.
(Source: Supreme Court of the United States)
来源：美国最高法院
发布：GSM·美国（发布链接）
图片来源：图：位于华盛顿的美国最高法院大楼（GSM 联邦核心图库固定图）。 / Photo: The Supreme Court building in Washington (GSM federal core asset library).
GSM Global · 本篇英文版 English edition of this story
