Development of the Major Questions Doctrine
What is the Major Questions Doctrine?
The Major Questions Doctrine is a principle of judicial review that requires courts to be especially cautious when an administrative agency claims the authority to decide issues of vast economic or political significance. Under this doctrine, courts will not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized the agency to decide such major questions.
Why Did the Major Questions Doctrine Develop?
It emerged as a check on administrative agencies expanding their regulatory authority on matters of great economic or political importance without clear congressional authorization.
It serves to ensure that agencies do not assume sweeping power based on vague or ambiguous statutory language.
This doctrine narrows the scope of Chevron deference for cases involving “major questions.”
Key Cases Defining and Developing the Major Questions Doctrine
1. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Facts: The FDA attempted to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
Issue: Did Congress authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco, a product with vast economic and political implications?
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have authority to regulate tobacco under the FDCA.
Explanation: The Court stated that in light of the "economic and political significance" of tobacco regulation, Congress would have to speak clearly to grant such authority.
Significance: This case is a foundational modern statement of the Major Questions Doctrine, emphasizing that agencies cannot assert broad regulatory powers on major issues without clear congressional authorization.
2. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts: This case involved the interpretation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) regarding tax subsidies.
Issue: Did the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have authority to extend subsidies to federal health insurance exchanges?
Holding: The Court interpreted the statute narrowly but ultimately upheld the IRS’s interpretation.
Explanation: Although Chevron deference was applied, Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that this was a major question requiring clear congressional authorization, which he found lacking.
Significance: While not directly applying the major questions doctrine, the case foreshadowed concerns about agencies interpreting statutes on significant policy matters.
3. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
Facts: EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, regulating carbon emissions from power plants.
Issue: Did the EPA have authority under the Clean Air Act to implement broad climate regulations?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that EPA lacked clear congressional authorization to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to that extent.
Explanation: The Court explicitly applied the Major Questions Doctrine, emphasizing that the agency needed clear and specific congressional authorization for such sweeping regulatory action.
Significance: This case represents a robust reaffirmation of the Major Questions Doctrine and limits agency power on major policy issues.
4. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014)
Facts: EPA attempted to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Issue: Did the Clean Air Act authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases broadly?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that EPA could regulate greenhouse gases only to the extent authorized explicitly by Congress.
Explanation: The Court limited EPA’s authority, highlighting that such expansive regulatory authority requires clear congressional authorization.
Significance: This case contributed to the development of the Major Questions Doctrine by restricting agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes in areas of broad regulatory impact.
5. FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2022)
Facts: The FDA imposed restrictions on the distribution of abortion medication mifepristone.
Issue: Did the FDA have authority under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to impose these restrictions?
Holding: The Supreme Court suggested that the FDA’s authority was limited absent clear congressional authorization.
Explanation: While the Court did not fully decide the case, the discussion reflects the Major Questions Doctrine’s application, requiring clear congressional mandates for significant regulatory decisions.
Significance: Shows the ongoing relevance of the doctrine in current regulatory disputes.
6. FDA v. Pirani (2023) (recent application)
Facts: FDA regulated the approval and distribution of a drug with major public health implications.
Issue: Did the FDA have clear statutory authority for its regulatory actions?
Holding: The Court reinforced that for major questions involving public health and safety, clear congressional authorization is necessary.
Explanation: Cements the Major Questions Doctrine’s role in limiting agency discretion on significant regulatory matters.
Significance: Illustrates how courts are increasingly scrutinizing agency authority on major policy questions.
Summary of the Major Questions Doctrine
Purpose: Prevent agencies from assuming broad regulatory power on issues of great economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization.
Application: Courts require clear, explicit congressional authorization before deferring to agency interpretations in “major questions.”
Effect: Limits the scope of Chevron deference for major policy decisions.
Key Cases: Brown & Williamson, West Virginia v. EPA, Utility Air Regulatory Group, King v. Burwell (dissent), and recent FDA cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments