Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶69

Not everyone sees it this way. Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case, and they even join much of today's principal opinion. But, they insist, they can reach the same result by employing only routine tools of statutory interpretation. Post, at 304 (Kagan, J., joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Meanwhile, one colleague who joins the principal opinion in full suggests the major questions doctrine is nothing more than routine statutory interpretation. Post, at 300 (Barrett, J., concurring). Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today's application of the doctrine. Post, at 330 (Kavanaugh, J., joined by Thomas and Alito, JJ., dissenting). Finally, seeking to sidestep the major questions doctrine altogether, one colleague submits that Congress may…

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