About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (April 6, 2022)

handle is hein.crs/govefnv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: C o g e inai e s a c S e r i c The Major Questions Doctrine Congress frequently delegates authority to agencies to regulate particular aspects of society, in general or broad terms. However, in a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has declared that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear statutory authorization. Courts, commentators, and individual Supreme Court Justices have referred to this doctrine as the major questions doctrine (or major rules doctrine), although the Court has never used that term in a majority opinion. This In Focus provides an overview of the major questions doctrine. It discusses the doctrine's framework, provides examples of its application, explores recent Supreme Court developments, and offers considerations for Congress in crafting legislation against the backdrop of the doctrine. Overview Agencies often must interpret statutes that grant them regulatory authority. If challenged, courts may need to review such interpretations to determine if an agency has exceeded its authority, and in doing so, will sometimes defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Under the major questions doctrine, however, the Supreme Court has rejected agency claims of regulatory authority when (1) the underlying claim of authority concerns an issue of vast 'economic and political significance,' and (2) Congress has not clearly empowered the agency with authority over the issue. Util. Air Regul. Grp. (UARG) v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). In requiring an agency to point to a clear textual commitment of authority to regulate issues involving major questions, the Court has explained that Congress ... does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions-it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). The Court has used the doctrine a number of times to reject agency claims of regulatory authority, including in regard to * the Federal Communication Commission's waiver of a tariff requirement for certain common carriers under its statutory authority to modify such requirement (MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994)), * the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of the tobacco industry pursuant to its statutory authority over drugs and devices (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)), * the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) consideration of costs in regulating air pollutants under its authority to prescribe ambient air quality standards that are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety (Whitman, 531 U.S. 457), * the Attorney General's regulation of assisted suicide drugs under his statutory authority over controlled substances (Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)), * EPA's determination that the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles triggered greenhouse gas permitting requirements for stationary sources (UARG, 573 U.S. 302), and * the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) decision that a federal health care exchange is an exchange established by the State for purposes of determining eligibility for tax credits (King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)). On the other hand, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Court rejected EPA's argument, which was based on the major questions doctrine, that it did not have legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. These examples indicate the range of questions the Court has defined as major under the doctrine. However, the precise scope of the doctrine is unknown. The Court has not clearly explained when, as a general matter, an agency's regulatory action will raise a question so significant that the doctrine applies. Relationship to the Chevron Doctrine The Court traditionally has treated the major questions doctrine as an exception to the Chevron doctrine, which the Court established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron doctrine governs judicial review of an agency's interpretation of a statute it administers. If Chevron applies, a court will typically engage in a two-step analysis to determine if it must defer to an agency's statutory interpretation. At step one, the court asks whether the statute directly addresses the precise issue before the court. If the statute is ambiguous or silent in that respect, the court must proceed to step two, which instructs the court generally to defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation. However, when an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute concerns an issue of vast economic and political significance, the Court has at times invoked the major questions doctrine to deny the agency the deference traditionally accorded under Chevron. ittps://Crsreports.congress.gt 0 April 6, 2022

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most