MAJOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Monast, Jonas J.
• 署名单位: University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• 刊物名称: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0001-8368
• 发表日期: 2016
• 页码: 445-489
• 关键词: nondelegation

摘要

The U.S. Supreme Court's King v. Burwell decision upholding the provision of tax credits to individuals purchasing insurance on a federal insurance exchange may have long-standing impacts on administrative law. In particular, the Burwell decision invokes the major questions doctrine that states some issues are of such exceptional political and economic consequence that the courts will presume Congress did not intend to delegate the issue to agencies unless the statute is clear. In those circumstances, explicit, rather than implicit, delegation is necessary. At this stage, the bounds of the major questions doctrine are more unclear than clear. The doctrine is unsettled and is therefore defined in the most general of terms, providing little guidance to courts or to federal agencies evaluating their statutory mandates. This article explores outstanding questions surrounding the major questions doctrine, focusing on the doctrine's impacts on agency decisionmaking post-Burwell. The Article summarizes the Court's use of the major questions doctrine in Burwell, the evolution of the doctrine, and theories regarding its application and long-term importance. It then analyzes cases invoking the major questions doctrine as well as those rejecting the doctrine to identify patterns that may inform agency decisionmaking. The Article demonstrates that there is little distinction between a hard look Chevron analysis and a major questions analysis, suggesting that agency litigation strategies will likely proceed in a similar manner in an effort to prevail under either doctrine. The most significant near-term impact of the evolving doctrine may be the chilling due to the uncertainty regarding when an agency has authority to interpret statutory terms. The article concludes by identifying opportunities to provide doctrinal clarity through litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan.