Skip to main content

Analysis and Opinion - "Major Questions Doctrine Hands Power to Judges After Chevron"

OPINION - Analysis and Summary - "Major Questions Doctrine Hands Power to Judges After Chevron"

This article by Richard Pierce examines the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) and its potential consequences for regulatory power.

Original source:

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

Shifting Landscape:

  • Chevron Deference Weakening: The legal principle giving deference to agencies' interpretations of statutes (Chevron deference) seems to be losing ground in the Supreme Court.

Rise of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD):

  • This emerging doctrine empowers courts to reject agency interpretations on issues of significant national political or economic importance unless Congress explicitly authorizes such actions.
  • This potentially grants judges broad power to strike down agency regulations based on personal views, not necessarily clear legal grounds.

Impact on Agencies:

  • Alabama Association Case (2021): This landmark case established the MQD by invalidating the CDC's eviction moratorium during the pandemic.
  • The Supreme Court has since applied the MQD in other cases, impacting areas like environmental and health regulations.
  • Lower courts are increasingly using the MQD, potentially paralyzing agencies' ability to take significant regulatory actions.

Uncertain Application:

  • There's no clear definition of "major national significance" or how to measure economic or political significance.
  • This ambiguity leads to inconsistent application of the MQD across courts.

Political Concerns:

  • A study suggests judges might be using the MQD for politically motivated invalidation of agency actions, aligning with the appointing president's party.

Potential Consequences:

  • Widespread use of the MQD could significantly hinder agencies' ability to regulate effectively.

Author's Perspective:

  • Richard Pierce, an administrative law expert, expresses concern that the MQD grants judges excessive power and undermines effective regulation.

Overall, the article highlights a critical debate about the balance of power between courts and agencies in interpreting laws. The growing prominence of the MQD could have significant implications for the future of regulatory policy in the United States.


Jaime R. Escalona
On behalf of COViSAL for Restitution, since 2009.
https://www.covisal.org/       
Twitter: @COViSAL
jaenrodes@covisal.org
jaenrodes@gmail.com


Con DIOS, superaremos todos los obstáculos / With GOD, we'll overcome all obstacles


La labor de COViSAL, desde el 2009, es de índole investigativa, informativa y de difusión. NO debe interpretarse como asesoría legal. The nature of the work of COViSAL, since 2009, is research, information, and dissemination. It should NOT be interpreted as legal advice.

 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Carta Abierta a Ralph Janvey, Abogados del Síndico y Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford - Solicitud Respuesta Oportuna a las Consultas de COViSAL

COViSAL     FO R    RESTITUTION ,    SINC E   200 9       http://www.covisal.org 17 de marzo de 2025 Carta Abierta a Ralph Janvey, Abogados del Síndico y Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford responsables de la Administración Judicial del Stanford Financial Group y de las Distribuciones a las víctimas. Asunto: Solicitud Respuesta oportuna a las Consultas de COViSAL. Estimados Sr. Ralph Janvey, Abogados y Comité Oficial de Inversionistas de Stanford: Me dirijo a ustedes en esta Carta Abierta en nombre de COViSAL (Coalición Víctimas de Stanford América Latina - 2009), sus miembros y seguidores, para expresar nuestra profunda preocupación y decepción por la falta de respuesta a nuestras comunicaciones del pasado 7 de enero y 6 de febrero referentes al "U.S. Receiver's Claims Process", a la transición a Verita Global y al futuro de la Administración Judicial del Stanford Financial Group. Estas consultas se hicieron de...

COViSAL #208 – Message from Gilardi & Co. regarding uncashed or void checks

  COViSAL     FO R    RESTITUTION ,    SINC E   200 9       http://www.covisal.org March 20, 2025 COViSAL #208 – Message from Gilardi & Co. regarding uncashed or void checks Dear Friend, Some of you have notified me about receiving an email from info@e.stanfordfinancialclaims.com with the subject: " Request for Information re Uncashed & Void Stanford Receivership Distribution Check(s)." This message has raised concerns about the sender's authenticity. In light of this situation, I contacted the Receiver Ralph Janvey and his lawyers to clarify the matter. Below, I share their response translated into Spanish, along with the message that COViSAL sent to the Receiver. Response from the Receiver’s lawyer, Ralph Janvey ( March 19, 2025): Subject : Urgent – Suspicious email to Stanford victims from the Receiver’s Claims Agent in the U.S. “The email that is the subject of your inquiry was sent from the claim...

Open Letter to Ralph Janvey, Attorneys for the Receiver, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee - Request for Timely Response

  COViSAL     FO R    RESTITUTION ,    SINC E   200 9       http://www.covisal.org March 17, 2025 Open Letter to Ralph Janvey, Attorneys for the Receiver, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee, responsible for the Judicial Administration of the Stanford Financial Group and Distributions to the Victims. Subject: Request for Timely Response to COViSAL’s Inquiries Dear Mr. Ralph Janvey, Attorneys, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee, I am writing to you in this Open Letter on behalf of COViSAL (Coalition of Stanford Victims in Latin America - 2009), its members, and followers, to express our deep concern and disappointment over the lack of response to our communications dated January 7 and February 6 regarding the "U.S. Receiver's Claims Process," the transition to Verita Global, and the future of the Judicial Administration of the Stanford Financial Group. These inquiries were made in good faith to e...