Major questions doctrine
The principle that an agency needs clear congressional authorisation before deciding a question of vast economic or political significance.
The major questions doctrine holds that when an agency claims power to decide something of extraordinary economic and political significance, courts will not infer that power from general or ambiguous statutory language. Congress must have authorised it clearly. The doctrine was named and applied most prominently in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022.
It operates as a threshold question rather than a deferential standard. Where it applies, the agency does not benefit from any presumption at all and must point to a specific grant of authority. Its central difficulty is that no precise test determines which questions are major, so litigation over a significant rule now routinely includes an argument that the doctrine is triggered.
It is distinct from the end of Chevron deference though frequently discussed alongside it. Chevron concerned how much weight an agency's reading receives; this doctrine concerns whether the agency may address the subject at all. Both increase the importance of the statutory citation an agency puts at the front of a final rule.
What the federal government did, once a day.
One email each weekday: the rules, filings, votes and Fed decisions that actually changed something, each one linked to the document it came from.