By Trevor Mathes, Spring 2022 Environmental Clinic Student
The shift from Trump to Biden saw a decisive turn in the Executive Branch’s environmental and administrative policy. Predictably, opponents of this new policy turn have mounted legal challenges to Biden-era regulations. One of the chief theories underlying these legal challenges has been the “major questions” doctrine. While the doctrine has been used before, it rose to prominence after Biden’s election. Most prominently, it was referenced in Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion striking down OSHA’s vaccine mandate. However, a case currently before the Supreme Court, West Virginia v. EPA, has presented an opportunity for the Supreme Court to use the doctrine to significantly curtail environmental regulation.
It is important to note that there is already a swathe of safeguards to prevent agencies from abusing their rulemaking power. The Administrative Procedure Act already requires courts set aside agency actions that are arbitrary and capricious or go against their legislative mandate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already created judicial rules, such as the non-delegation doctrine, to keep Congress from improperly granting authority to agencies.
At its core, the major questions doctrine states that a federal agency, such as the EPA, cannot issue regulations that are significantly important without a clear authorization from Congress. While the desire for clear regulatory mandates has some appeal, it risks completely stalling important government action. The major questions doctrine itself is vague and sets out few standards to determine either when a proposed regulation is sufficiently significant to trigger the doctrine or when a piece of legislation is sufficiently clear to justify a regulation. As such, it could allow for judges to block regulations that Congress itself was fine with or that don’t actually implicate important questions. When combined with the legislative gridlock in Washington, this means important areas of national policy, such as the environment, could go unaddressed.
West Virginia v. EPA presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to apply the major questions doctrine to environmental law. At stake is the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. While the facts of the case are complex, at its heart the case revolves around whether an Obama-era regulation that was never actually implemented was invalid. The states challenging the regulation have placed the major questions doctrine at the heart of their legal case. If the Court is swayed by their reasoning, the Biden administration will find itself with another hurdle to overcome in enacting a comprehensive environmental policy.
Sources: https://legal-planet.org/2022/02/28/todays-big-climate-case-qa/; https://www.vox.com/2022/2/28/22954696/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-brett-kavanaugh-samuel-alito; https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-the-significance-behind-the-major-questions-quandary
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.