Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2026, 06:59 PM - Edit history (2)
...writing:
"The major questions doctrine teaches that, to sustain a claim that Congress has granted them an extraordinary power, executive officials must identify clear authority for that power. Far from a novelty, much the same principle has long applied to those who claim extraordinary delegated authority, whether in private or public law."
Article I vests all federal legislative power in Congress. But like any written instrument, federal legislation cannot anticipate every eventuality, a point my concurring colleagues have observed in the past. And highly resourceful members of the executive branch have strong incentives to exploit any doubt in Congress’s past work to assume new power for themselves.
The major questions doctrine helps prevent that kind of exploitation. Our founders understood that men are not angels, and we disregard that insight at our peril when we allow the few (or the one) to aggrandize their power based on loose or uncertain authority.
We delude ourselves, too, if we think that power will accumulate safely and only in the hands of dispassionate “people . . . found in agencies.” Even if un- elected agency officials were uniquely immune to the desire for more power (an unserious assumption), they report to elected Presidents who can claim no such modesty.
Another feature of our separation of powers makes the major questions doctrine especially salient. When a private agent oversteps, a principal may fix that problem prospectively by withdrawing the agent’s authority. Under our Constitution, the remedy is not so simple.
Once this Court reads a doubtful statute as granting the executive branch a given power, that power may prove almost impossible for Congress to retrieve. Any President keen on his own authority (and, again, what President isn’t?) will have a strong incentive to veto legislation aimed at returning the power to Congress.
Perhaps Congress can use other tools, including its appropriation authority, to influence how the President exercises his new power. Maybe Congress can sometimes even leverage those tools to induce the President to withhold a veto.
But retrieving a lost power is no easy business in our constitutional order. And without doctrines like major questions, our system of separated powers and checks-and balances threatens to give way to the continual and permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man.
That is no recipe for a republic.
= new reply since forum marked as read