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.
![handle is hein.crs/govejgt0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional Research Serv
Informing the Iegislative debate since 1914
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 congressional authorization. Courts and
commentators have referred to this doctrine as the major
questions doctrine (or major rules doctrine). The Supreme
Court never used that term in a majority opinion prior to
2022, but the doctrine has recently become more prominent.
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. In doing so, courts will sometimes
defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
The Supreme Court has explained that, in general, courts
interpret statutory language in [its] context and with a
view to [its] place in the overall statutory scheme. In cases
where there is something extraordinary about the history
and breadth of the authority an agency asserts or the
economic and political significance of that assertion,
however, the Court indicated courts should hesitate before
concluding that Congress meant to confer such authority.
West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2607-2608 (2022).
Under the major questions doctrine, 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 agencies to point to clear
congressional authorization for their actions in major
questions cases, the Supreme Court has further explained
that Congress rarely provides an extraordinary grant of
regulatory authority through language that is modest,
vague, subtle, or ambiguous.
The Court has used the doctrine 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)),
Updated November 2, 2022
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 v. Am. Trucking
Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001)),
* 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 (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles triggered
GHG permitting requirements for stationary sources
(UARG, 573 U.S. 302),
* 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)),
* the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC's) nationwide eviction moratorium (Ala. Ass' of
Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) (per curiam)),
* the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
(OSHA's) emergency temporary standard imposing
COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements on a
large portion of the national workforce (Nat'l Fed'n of
Ind. Business v. OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) (per
curiam)), and
* an EPA regulation of GHG emissions that was premised
on generation shifting, or shifting electricity
generation from higher-emitting sources to lower-
emitting ones (West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587).
On the other hand, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497
(2007), the Court rejected EPA's argument, based on the
major questions doctrine, that it did not have legal authority
to regulate GHG 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 an agency's regulatory action will
raise a question so significant that the doctrine applies, nor
has it specified what legislative acts could constitute clear
congressional authorization.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govejgt0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)