Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶116

The difficulty is, our major questions cases are different. Often, little about them “ `goes without saying.' ” Ibid. Take FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 (2000). There, the question was whether the FDA could regulate tobacco products. Id., at 125. Looking only to common sense, the answer would have been yes. Congress authorized the FDA to regulate “drugs,” which Congress defined expressly and broadly as “ `articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.' ” Id., at 126. As a matter of common sense, nicotine qualifes as a “drug” based on this statutory definition, as it might even as a matter of everyday speech. West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 721–722 (noting the “colorable textual basis” for the executive branch's interpretation in Brown & Williamson). Still, we held the FDA could not regulate tobacco products. Brown &…

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