In one of its last opinions issued before the end of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important ruling that sheds light on the so-called “major questions” doctrine, an emerging legal standard that can be used to challenge agency rulemaking. Although the case at issue deals with a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Court’s ruling has major implications for agency rulemaking generally, as discussed in more detail below.
At its core, the major questions doctrine is premised on the theory that if Congress wants to delegate to a federal agency the ability to issue regulations that will have significant economic and political consequences, then Congress should make that delegation explicit. In contrast to the deference often given by the courts to agency rules, the major questions doctrine requires the court to view the agency’s action skeptically. Applying the doctrine in the case at hand, the Court found that the EPA exceeded its authority in issuing a consequential emissions regulation without an express delegation by Congress to do so.
Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.