Civil Disagreements: Major Questions Doctrine

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked the “major questions doctrine” in its landmark decision rejecting an EPA initiative to regulate greenhouse gases. The doctrine, which has evolved and gained prominence in recent years, describes the Court’s demand that executive branch administrative agencies only address issues of “vast economic and political significance” if they have “clear” statutory authorization from Congress.

In the greenhouse gas case, Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s majority described the doctrine as a beneficial limit on undemocratic administrative power. Dissenters saw the ruling as a judicial power grab. Justice Elena Kagan protested that “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy.”

In practice, the major questions doctrine has already affected many Americans in their everyday lives. It has been used to limit federal regulation in areas like the environment, drugs, worker safety, and more. With the Court’s ideological composition set for the foreseeable future, we are likely to see this trend continue.

Is the major questions doctrine sound constitutional interpretation? Should the Supreme Court have the final word on “major questions”? And, if so, how does the Court distinguish between “major” and “minor” questions?

Civil Disagreements is a series of moderated debates on current, critical, and often contentious civic questions sponsored by Reform for Illinois, the American Bar Association’s Division for Public Education, the American Constitution Society (Chicago and Austin, TX chapters), and the Federalist Society (Chicago chapter).