Is the Major Questions Doctrine a new nondelegation rule?
What is the Major Questions Doctrine?
The Major Questions Doctrine is a principle courts use to refuse to defer to administrative agencies when the question at issue involves a "major" issue of economic, political, or social significance. In such cases, courts require clear congressional authorization before allowing an agency to decide or interpret the issue, effectively demanding explicit statutory clarity.
It’s sometimes described as a "clear statement rule" for major policy questions, preventing agencies from resolving big issues on ambiguous statutory text.
Is the Major Questions Doctrine a New Nondelegation Rule?
Nondelegation Doctrine: This is a constitutional principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to another branch (like administrative agencies) without clear standards. The doctrine demands an "intelligible principle" guiding agency discretion.
Major Questions Doctrine: Although related, it is more of a judicial interpretive principle than a constitutional rule. It imposes a heightened requirement that Congress speak clearly when authorizing agencies to make decisions on major questions but does not outright invalidate delegations in the way the nondelegation doctrine would.
Summary: The Major Questions Doctrine operates as a judge-made, statutory interpretive tool requiring clear congressional authorization on major issues, whereas the nondelegation doctrine is a constitutional limit on the delegation of legislative power. The Major Questions Doctrine could be seen as a functional cousin or a "soft" version of nondelegation, but not strictly a new constitutional nondelegation rule.
Key Cases Explaining and Applying the Major Questions Doctrine
1. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)
Facts: FDA tried to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Holding: The Court refused to allow FDA to do so, reasoning that such a major public health policy issue would require clear congressional authorization.
Significance: The Court emphasized that ambiguous statutory language does not authorize agencies to make major policy decisions of vast economic and political significance.
2. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)
Facts: EPA sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Holding: The Court ruled against the EPA’s expansive interpretation because Congress had not clearly authorized regulation of greenhouse gases in that way.
Significance: Reaffirmed that agencies must have clear congressional authorization before making sweeping regulatory moves on major questions.
3. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
Facts: Whether tax credits under the Affordable Care Act applied to federally-run insurance exchanges.
Holding: The Court decided the issue without deferring to IRS agency interpretation because the question was of “deep economic and political significance.”
Significance: Explicitly refused Chevron deference, applying a form of the Major Questions Doctrine by demanding clear congressional intent for major issues.
4. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Facts: EPA attempted to regulate carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.
Holding: The Court struck down EPA’s interpretation, holding that major questions require clear congressional authorization.
Significance: The strongest recent reaffirmation of the Major Questions Doctrine, limiting agency power on big policy decisions without explicit congressional approval.
5. Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, 141 S.Ct. 2485 (2021)
Facts: The question was whether the CDC could impose a nationwide eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Holding: The Court ruled that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority because Congress had not clearly authorized such a sweeping action.
Significance: Demonstrated application of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit agency authority on major public policy decisions in emergencies.
Additional Cases and Context
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)
The Court rejected the Attorney General’s expansive interpretation of drug laws to prohibit physician-assisted suicide, applying a similar reasoning that major policy decisions require clear congressional authorization.
FDA v. American Bioscience, Inc., 153 F.3d 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Circuit Court)
Early indication of courts demanding clear statements for major agency actions.
Summary Table: Major Questions Doctrine Cases
| Case | Year | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson | 2000 | No agency authority on major policy without clear statute |
| Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA | 2014 | Requires clear congressional authorization for major environmental regulation |
| King v. Burwell | 2015 | No Chevron deference on major, politically significant questions |
| Alabama Realtors v. HHS | 2021 | No sweeping emergency powers without clear congressional grant |
| West Virginia v. EPA | 2022 | Major questions require clear congressional authorization |
Conclusion
The Major Questions Doctrine is not a new constitutional nondelegation doctrine but rather a judicial interpretive rule that restricts agency authority on major questions unless Congress speaks clearly.
It functions as a "clear statement" rule demanding heightened clarity in statutes for agencies to act on issues of major economic or political significance.
While it shares concerns with the nondelegation doctrine (limiting broad agency discretion), it does not strike down statutes on constitutional grounds but limits agency interpretation.
The doctrine has grown stronger recently and plays a key role in limiting administrative power, particularly when courts are reluctant to defer to agencies under Chevron.
RELATED Blog
0 comments