Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

2 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

guarantees.  I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  and  write  to  offer 
some additional observations about the doctrine on which it 
rests. 

I 
A 

One  of  the  Judiciary’s  most  solemn  duties  is  to  ensure 
that  acts  of  Congress  are  applied  in  accordance  with  the
Constitution in the cases that come before us.  To help fulfill 
that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”
rules.  These rules assume that, absent a clear statement 
otherwise,  Congress  means  for  its  laws  to  operate  in  con-
gruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.
In this way, these clear-statement rules help courts “act as
faithful agents of the  Constitution.”  A.  Barrett, Substan-
tive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B. U. L. Rev. 109, 169
(2010) (Barrett).

Consider  some  examples.  The  Constitution  prohibits
Congress from passing laws imposing various types of ret-
roactive  liability.  See  Art.  I,  §  9;  Landgraf  v.  USI  Film 
Products, 511 U. S. 244, 265–266 (1994).  Consistent with 
this rule, Chief Justice Marshall long ago advised that “a 
court . . . ought to struggle hard against a [statutory] con-
struction which will, by a retrospective operation, affect the 
rights  of  parties.”  United  States  v.  Schooner  Peggy, 
1 Cranch  103,  110  (1801).    Justice  Paterson  likewise  in-
sisted that courts must interpret statutes to apply only pro-
spectively “unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative,
that  no  other  meaning  can  be  annexed  to  them.”    United 
States v. Heth, 3 Cranch 399, 413 (1806).

The Constitution also incorporates the doctrine of sover-
eign immunity.  See, e.g., Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 
12–17 (1890).  To enforce that doctrine, courts have consist-
ently  held  that  “nothing  but  express  words,  or  an  insur-
mountable  implication”  would  justify  the  conclusion  that