Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

2 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

questions doctrine that way.  Rather, I understand it to em-
phasize the importance of context when a court interprets a
delegation to an administrative agency.  Seen in this light,
the  major  questions  doctrine  is  a  tool  for  discerning—not
departing from—the text’s most natural interpretation. 

I 
A 
Substantive  canons  are  rules  of  construction  that  ad-
vance values external to a statute.1  A. Barrett, Substantive 
Canons  and  Faithful  Agency,  90  B. U.  L. Rev.  109,  117 
(2010) (Barrett).  Some substantive canons, like the rule of 
lenity,  play  the  modest  role  of  breaking  a  tie  between
equally plausible interpretations of a statute.  United States 
v.  Santos,  553  U. S.  507,  514  (2008)  (plurality  opinion). 
Others are more aggressive—think of them as strong-form 
substantive  canons.  Unlike  a  tie-breaking  rule,  a  strong-
form canon counsels a court to strain statutory text to ad-
vance  a  particular  value.    Barrett  168.  There  are  many 
such  canons  on  the  books,  including  constitutional  avoid-
ance,  the  clear-statement  federalism  rules,  and  the  pre-
sumption against retroactivity.  Id., at 138–145, 172–173. 
Such rules effectively impose a “clarity tax” on Congress by 
demanding that it speak unequivocally if it wants to accom-
plish certain ends.  J. Manning, Clear Statement Rules and 
the Constitution, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 399, 403 (2010).  This 
“clear statement” requirement means that the better inter-
pretation  of  a  statute  will  not  necessarily  prevail.  E.g., 
Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., 
at 6) (“[I]n this context, better is not enough”).  Instead, if 

—————— 

1 They stand in contrast to linguistic or descriptive canons, which are
designed to reflect grammatical rules (such as the punctuation canon) or
speech patterns (like the inclusion of some things implies the exclusion
of others).  A. Barrett, Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B. U. 
L. Rev. 109, 117 (2010).