Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶112

Turn now to the second camp. If some have criticized the major questions doctrine, others have responded by seeking to soften its blow. Though joining today's principal opinion holding that “clear” statutory authority is required to sustain the exercise of an “extraordinary” power, ante, at 248, 255, Justice Barrett has suggested that the major questions doctrine might be reconceived. On her view, the doctrine need not be understood as a “substantive canon designed to enforce Article I's Vesting Clause”—a “valu[e] external to a statute.” Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 508, 510 (concurring opinion). Instead, the doctrine might be thought of as a “commonsense principl[e] of communication” that counsels “skepticism” when executive officials claim extraordinary powers derived from Congress. Id., at 514, 516; see also post, p. 300 (concurring opinion).

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