THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE VS. CHEVRON DOCTRINE

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

However, this past June the Supreme Court strayed away from decades of precedent in administrative law with West Virginia v. EPA. The case centered around the Clean Power Plan (CPP), specifically a provision that the EPA could regulate existing power plants by converting coal-based plants to “generation shifting” natural gas plants or renewable energy. The EPA claimed they had the authority to enforce the plan due to their interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled in West Virginia’s favor as it stated that the EPA lacked the jurisdiction to regulate existing power plants, thereby creating the Major Questions Doctrine. The doctrine holds that when a statute is vague it is insufficient to defer to the agency’s interpretation, rather it requires direct action from Congress. With the new doctrine, the Court now has the power to strike agency rule. While these two doctrines may seem confusing, the whole debate boils down to executive vs. judicial power and there are strong arguments for each side.

Liberals tend to prefer the Chevron doctrine in the modern age because they have a broader reading of the Constitution. They argue that even though the Constitution states that the judicial branch is tasked with interpreting the law, sometimes the agency’s interpretation is more coherent. The agency that made the rule has more technical knowledge and therefore the agency’s judgment should be favored. Another justification is that the executive branch reflects the opinion of the people at the time, so their interpretations will be more consistent with the general population.

David A. Strauss, an expert in administrative law and UChicago law faculty, comments on the power of administrative agencies : “I think the Supreme Court, too often, does not recognize that the law gives administrative agencies – which have more expert knowledge than courts, and are more politically accountable than courts – the power to address even what the Court considers “major questions.” West Virginia v. EPA was a loss for the liberals because it shrunk the power of the CPP plan and set precedent for future environmental standards.

On the other hand, the Major Questions Doctrine is a crucial win for Conservatives in terms of administrative law. Conservatives have a fine reading of the Constitution, so they tend to prefer the Major Questions Doctrine. Conservatives believe the Constitution states that it is the judicial branch’s jurisdiction to interpret what the law says. They claim that the Chevron doctrine diverges from the Constitution because it transfers authority from the judiciary to the executive. Conservatives also assert that the Executive could have a political bias, while the Judiciary is a more unbiased institution. While both sides present convincing arguments, the doctrine that the Court will choose to use as precedent in the coming years will have widespread effects.

Although these two doctrines have been at the forefront of environmental cases, the decision could have ramifications for international trade, health, and immigration. The question of whose responsibility it is to decipher the law directly relates to the scope and power of the administrative agencies. The effect of changing the scope of administrative agencies is often underestimated as it can affect cases such as the recent Dobbs case. The Court can strike down potential rules to protect abortion access despite the Executive power. These doctrines raise the question of whether political questions should be debated by representatives or decided by an unelected body of officials. There are not many other legal issues that deal with the underlying fabric of our nation.