Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶131
That brings us to the third camp. My dissenting colleagues have defended the major questions doctrine in the past, and they do so again today. Post, at 359–361 (opinion of Kavanaugh, J.). They agree that the doctrine is grounded in the Constitution. Post, at 360. They agree that the doctrine requires us to deviate from “ `routine' ” statutory interpretation principles and instead place a “thumb on the scale,” one requiring executive officials to identify “ `clear' ” congressional authorization when they seek to exercise some “major” power. Post, at 361. But, my colleagues say, IEEPA provides the clear statement needed to sustain the President's tariffs. Post, at 366–373. Alternatively, they submit, we shouldn't apply the major questions doctrine to any statute, like IEEPA, that implicates “foreign affairs.” Post, at 373–377. And this exception, they add, is particularly warranted here…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.