In a pair of cases declaring a “major questions” exception to Chevron deference, the Supreme Court held that executive agencies may not implement major policy changes without explicit authorization from Congress. But in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court unceremoniously killed its “major questions” rule, requiring the EPA to implement one such major policy change. Because the scholarly literature to date has failed to discern a worthy justification for the “major questions” rule, the academy might be tempted to celebrate the rule’s death. This Article, however, argues that the rule ought to be mourned and, indeed, reincarnated. It offers a “non-interference” justification for the “major questions” exception, arguing that the rule should apply whenever an agency enters debate in a regulatory regime to which Congress is actively considering legislative changes. The purpose of the rule, then, is to prevent agencies from altering the regulatory backdrop against which Congress is negotiating, and the purpose of judicial enforcement of a “major questions” rule is to restore the pre-interference regulatory reality so that congressional negotiations can pick up where they left off. This understanding of the rule explains and justifies the two “major questions” cases, but it cannot explain or justify Massachusetts v. EPA. The Article therefore argues that the “major questions” holding in Massachusetts v. EPA is wrong and should be rejected.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Moncrieff, Abigail R., "Reincarnating the “Major Questions” Exception to Chevron Deference as a Doctrine of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts v. EPA Got It Wrong)." (2008). Harvard Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 12.
Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Judges Commons, Legislation Commons, Politics Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons