The U.S. Supreme Court formally embraced the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) in its groundbreaking decision in West Virginia v. EPA. On its face, the doctrine is limited to “extraordinary cases … in which the history and the breadth of the authority that the agency has asserted, and the economic and political significance of that assertion, provide a reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress meant to confer” the authority for the challenged regulation absent “clear congressional authorization.” In practice, however, the MQD is an arbitrary doctrine that injects uncertainty into a wide range of administrative law and other cases. Unchecked, the doctrine threatens to overwhelm lower court dockets and disrupt government’s ability to function. This essay in the Harvard Journal on Legislation explores the profoundly disruptive nature of the MQD by surveying judicial rationales and litigants’ arguments to demonstrate the breadth and potential impact of the nascent doctrine.
This resource was commissioned by or produced by staff of the Center for Applied Environmental Law and Policy before the organization rebranded as Ridgeline Center for Law and Policy in 2026.