Major Questions Doctrine

The major questions doctrine holds that when an agency claims power to make a decision of vast economic and political significance, courts will not accept that Congress delegated it unless the statute says so clearly. Earlier cases pointed in this direction, such as FDA v. Brown and Williamson in 2000, which rejected the FDA's claimed authority to regulate tobacco. The Supreme Court named and applied the doctrine explicitly in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, striking down a plan to shift power generation away from coal.

The Court used the doctrine in a run of cases against the Biden administration, ending the CDC's eviction moratorium in 2021, blocking OSHA's vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers in 2022, and striking down student loan forgiveness in Biden v. Nebraska in 2023. Challengers then invoked it against the 2025 tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that a law about emergency economic powers could not authorize sweeping taxes on imports. When the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in February 2026, three justices in the majority relied on the doctrine, while others reached the same result through ordinary statutory reading.

The doctrine is related to, but distinct from, the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress cannot hand away its legislative power at all and requires an intelligible principle to guide agencies. The Court has struck down statutes on nondelegation grounds only twice, both in 1935, and in FCC v. Consumers' Research in 2025 it again declined to revive the doctrine. Supporters see the major questions doctrine as protecting Congress's role and democratic accountability. Critics argue it lets judges block policies they dislike and has no fixed test for what counts as major.