Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶153

Third, the dissent cites United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304 (1936). See post, at 374–375. There, the Court did suggest that nondelegation rules in the field of “domestic or internal affairs” should differ from those in the realm of “foreign or external affairs.” Curtiss- Wright, 299 U. S., at 315. But what should we make of that language? If it means that the nondelegation doctrine (and perhaps, by extension, the major questions doctrine) must account for the President's independent Article II powers, I agree.

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