Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 69.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

13 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

enables EPA to base emissions limits for existing stationary 
sources on the “best system.”  That system may be techno-
logical in nature; it may be whatever else the majority has 
in  mind;  or,  most  important  here,  it  may  be  generation
shifting.  The  statute  does  not  care.    And  when  Congress 
uses  “expansive  language”  to  authorize  agency  action,
courts generally may not “impos[e] limits on [the] agency’s 
discretion.”  Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul 
Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 
16).  That constraint on judicial authority—that insistence 
on judicial modesty—should resolve this case. 

II 
The majority thinks not, contending that in “certain ex-
traordinary  cases”—of  which  this  is  one—courts  should 
start off with “skepticism” that a broad delegation author-
izes agency action.  Ante, at 19.  The majority labels that 
view the “major questions doctrine,” and claims to find sup-
port for it in our caselaw.  Ante, at 19–20, 28.  But the rele-
vant decisions do normal statutory interpretation: In them, 
the Court simply insisted that the text of a broad delega-
tion, like any other statute, should be read in context, and 
with  a  modicum  of  common  sense.    Using  that  ordinary
method,  the  decisions  struck  down  agency  actions  (even
though  they  plausibly  fit  within  a  delegation’s  terms)  for
two principal reasons.  First, an agency was operating far
outside its traditional lane, so that it had no viable claim of 
expertise or experience.  And second, the action, if allowed, 
would have conflicted with, or even wreaked havoc on, Con-
gress’s broader design.  In short, the assertion of delegated 
power  was  a  misfit  for  both  the  agency  and  the  statutory 
scheme.  But that is not true here.  The Clean Power Plan 
falls within EPA’s wheelhouse, and it fits perfectly—as I’ve
just shown—with all the Clean Air Act’s provisions.  That 
the  Plan  addresses  major  issues  of  public  policy  does  not 
upend the analysis.  Congress wanted EPA to do just that.