Major Questions Doctrine
The Major Questions Doctrine is a principle in U.S. administrative law that holds courts should not defer to agency interpretations of statutes on issues of major political or economic significance unless Congress has spoken clearly on the matter.
It serves as a limitation on the Chevron deference (from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984), where courts generally defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers if the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
Under the Major Questions Doctrine, if an agency makes a decision of vast economic or political significance, courts require a clear statement from Congress authorizing the agency to act in that way. The idea is that Congress, not unelected agency officials, should make major policy decisions, unless Congress has clearly delegated that authority.
🔍 Key Cases Illustrating the Major Questions Doctrine
Below are five major Supreme Court cases that illustrate the development and application of this doctrine in detail:
1. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
📌 Facts:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claimed it had the authority to regulate tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), arguing that nicotine is a “drug” and cigarettes are “drug delivery devices.”
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court held the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco, even though the statute was broad enough to arguably include it.
🧠 Reasoning:
The regulation of tobacco is a major economic and political issue.
Congress had repeatedly addressed tobacco regulation in other ways and had not granted such authority to the FDA.
Therefore, the Court found that Congress would not have delegated such a significant policy decision in an ambiguous manner.
💡 Importance:
This is one of the earliest expressions of what would later become known as the Major Questions Doctrine. It reflects skepticism of agency claims to broad regulatory authority on important issues without clear congressional authorization.
2. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014)
📌 Facts:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants, using the Clean Air Act, which was originally meant to regulate more traditional air pollutants.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court ruled that EPA overstepped its authority in attempting to apply the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases in this context.
🧠 Reasoning:
Regulating millions of small sources of emissions (like schools, churches, and farms) would have enormous economic consequences.
The Court said the EPA was trying to rewrite clear statutory terms, which went far beyond what Congress authorized.
💡 Importance:
This case highlighted that even when a statute is broadly written, courts will be cautious about interpreting it to authorize major regulatory action unless Congress has spoken clearly.
3. King v. Burwell (2015)
📌 Facts:
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), individuals could receive tax subsidies if they bought insurance on an exchange “established by the State.” The IRS interpreted this to include federal exchanges, allowing subsidies nationwide.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court upheld the IRS’s interpretation, allowing subsidies on both state and federal exchanges.
🧠 Reasoning:
The Court did not apply Chevron deference, saying that this was a question of deep economic and political significance.
Because of that, the Court said it was the judiciary’s job—not the IRS’s—to decide the meaning of the statute.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that Congress intended to make subsidies available on both types of exchanges.
💡 Importance:
Though the government won, the Court’s refusal to defer to the IRS showed that major questions must be decided by the courts unless Congress clearly delegates the issue.
4. Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021)
📌 Facts:
The CDC imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic under its authority to take actions necessary to stop the spread of disease.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court blocked the moratorium, saying the CDC exceeded its statutory authority.
🧠 Reasoning:
The eviction moratorium involved vast economic and political consequences, impacting millions of landlords and tenants.
The statutory text used by the CDC had been interpreted for decades as much narrower.
The Court concluded that such a sweeping policy required clear congressional authorization, which was absent.
💡 Importance:
This is a clear example of the Major Questions Doctrine: no major policy decisions unless Congress has clearly authorized them.
5. West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
📌 Facts:
The EPA attempted to use the Clean Air Act to force power plants to shift energy production from coal to cleaner sources like wind and solar — a plan known as the Clean Power Plan.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court struck down the EPA’s plan, saying it exceeded its authority.
🧠 Reasoning:
The Court ruled that the Clean Power Plan represented a major shift in national energy policy, something that only Congress should decide.
The Clean Air Act did not contain a “clear statement” giving the EPA the power to reshape the electricity generation mix of the country.
💡 Importance:
This is the clearest modern application of the Major Questions Doctrine. It signaled that major regulatory initiatives, particularly those with economic and political significance, require explicit authorization from Congress.
6. Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
📌 Facts:
President Biden's administration announced a plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans under the HEROES Act, citing the COVID-19 emergency.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Holding:
The Court ruled that the Secretary of Education did not have the authority to cancel that much debt.
🧠 Reasoning:
The Court found that canceling over $400 billion in student loans affects the national economy and is a matter of vast economic significance.
The HEROES Act did not clearly authorize this kind of broad cancellation.
Therefore, under the Major Questions Doctrine, this required clear Congressional approval, which was absent.
💡 Importance:
This case reinforced the Court's commitment to applying the Major Questions Doctrine to check executive action, especially in matters with huge financial and political implications.
Summary Table of the Doctrine’s Key Elements
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Major Economic or Political Significance | Courts will apply this doctrine only to actions with large-scale national impact. |
| Clear Congressional Authorization Required | Agencies cannot act unless Congress has clearly granted the authority. |
| Judicial, not Administrative, Interpretation | Courts—not agencies—decide what the statute means in these major contexts. |
| Limits on Chevron Deference | Courts bypass Chevron when the issue is too significant to defer to agency judgment. |
Conclusion
The Major Questions Doctrine is now a powerful check on the administrative state. It reflects the principle that Congress—not agencies—should make important policy decisions, and agencies can only act in such areas with clear authorization.
Over the past 25 years, the Supreme Court has increasingly used this doctrine to curb broad assertions of regulatory power—especially in areas like energy, health, finance, and education.
RELATED Blog
0 comments