Administrative law has a remedy problem. Careful attention to procedural safeguards and standards of review in administrative cases often leaves remedial options undertheorized both in court opinions and in scholarly commentary. Recently, in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the D.C. Circuit upheld the vacatur of an easement to construct a major pipeline system known as the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In conducting its vacatur analysis, the Standing Rock court drew a key distinction: the vacatur inquiry looks to whether the agency could justify its procedural actions on remand, not whether it could justify its final decision. This approach is controversial but should become the new canon in vacatur analyses. With the Supreme Court yet to articulate its view on remand without vacatur, Standing Rock both fills the space left by the Court's silence and offers a compelling analytic model for the Court should it seek to clarify the doctrine in this important area of administrative law.