Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶103

So what is the basis for the charge that the major questions doctrine represents some “magica[l]” innovation? See West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 779 (Kagan, J., dissenting). Part of the answer may have to do with the fact that, in the latter half of the 20th century, this Court began experimenting with a very different approach. The Court pushed aside its long-held skepticism of claims to extraordinary delegated powers and began affrmatively encouraging them. Chev ron deference is just one example of this phenomenon, though a stark one. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). That case established a presumption that was nearly the opposite of the major questions doctrine: When Congress failed to speak clearly, courts put a thumb on the scale in favor of delegated power. Id., at 843–844. Given that development, the longstanding principles…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.