Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶129
I am certain of one thing: Our cases hold a clear statement is required to support a claim to an extraordinary delegated power. We required Congress to “speak clearly” in Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324. We demanded “clear congressional authorization” in NFIB, 595 U. S., at 118. We did the same in Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 506, and in West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 732, and we do so again today, ante, at 248. Nor do I see cause for being quite so reluctant about acknowledging this. The common law recognized many clear-statement rules. See, e. g., Part I–B, supra. Our own cases have applied a host of Constitution-enforcing clear-statement rules as well. We just encountered the federalism clear- statement rule in Bond. Add to the list clear-statement rules against laws that might apply retroactively, waive or abrogate sovereign immunity, or create enforceable rights under the Taxing Clause—to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.