Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶182

To the extent that Justice Gorsuch attacks the view that “common sense” alone can explain all our major questions decisions, ante, at 272–276, he takes down a straw man. I have never espoused that view. Rather, as I explained in my concurrence in Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 507 (2023), the major questions doctrine “situates text in context” and is therefore best understood as an ordinary application of textualism. Id., at 511. Textualists—like all those who use language to communicate—do not interpret words in a vacuum. Instead, we use context, including “[b]ackground legal conventions,” “common sense,” and “constitutional structure,” to ascertain a text's “most natural meaning.” Id., at 511–512, 515, 509.

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