The New Major Questions Doctrine

86 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2022 Last revised: 3 Oct 2023

See all articles by Daniel Deacon

Daniel Deacon

University of Michigan Law School

Leah Litman

University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: July 18, 2022

Abstract

This Article critically analyzes significant recent developments in the major questions doctrine. It highlights important shifts in what role the “majorness” of an agency policy plays in statutory interpretation, as well as changes in how the Court determines whether an agency policy is major. After the Supreme Court’s October term 2021, the “new” major questions doctrine operates as a clear statement rule that directs courts not to discern the plain meaning of a statute using the normal tools of statutory interpretation, but to require explicit and specific congressional authorization for certain agency policies. Even broadly worded, otherwise unambiguous statutes may not be good enough when it comes to policies the Court deems “major.”

At the same time, the Court has increasingly relied on three new indicia of majorness to determine whether an agency policy is major: the political significance of or political controversy surrounding the policy; the novelty of the policy; and the possibility that other, supposedly even more controversial agency policies might be supported by the agency’s broader statutory rationale.

Understanding how the major questions doctrine operates today is important not only to bring a modicum of clarity to a doctrine often described as radically indeterminate. Unpacking the new major questions doctrine also provides a way to interrogate and evaluate the doctrine and to assess how it relates to, and enforces, previously understood institutional and political pathologies. In particular, this Article argues that the new major questions doctrine allows the presence of present-day political controversy surrounding a policy to alter otherwise broad regulatory statutes outside of the formal legislative process. It supplies an additional means for minority rule in a constitutional system that already skews toward minority rule. What’s more, it invites politically infused judgments by the federal courts, further eroding democratic control of policy. And it operates as a powerful de-regulatory tool that limits or substantially nullifies congressional delegations to agencies in the circumstances where delegations are more likely to be used—and more likely to be effective—even as the Court claims it is simply doing statutory interpretation.

Suggested Citation

Deacon, Daniel and Litman, Leah, The New Major Questions Doctrine (July 18, 2022). 109 Va. L. Rev. 1009 (2023), U of Michigan Law & Econ Research Paper No. 22-033, U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 22-033, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4165724 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4165724

Daniel Deacon

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Leah Litman (Contact Author)

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
3,464
Abstract Views
10,623
Rank
6,228
PlumX Metrics