Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

18 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

If that’s not the problem, perhaps the dissent means to 
suggest that the major questions doctrine does not belong
on the list of our clear-statement rules.  At times, the dis-
sent  appears  to  dismiss  the  doctrine  as  a  “get-out-of-text
free car[d].”  Ibid.  The dissent even seems to suggest that
the doctrine could threaten “the safety and efficacy of med-
ications” or lead to “the routine adulteration of food.”  Post, 
at 31.  But then again, the dissent also acknowledges that
the major questions doctrine should “sensibl[y]” apply in at
least some situations.  Post, at 14–15.  The dissent even fa-
vorably highlights one application of the doctrine that our
colleagues criticized less than a year ago.  See post, at 18 
(citing Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 594 U. S. ___).  And, of 
course, our colleagues have joined other applications of the
major questions doctrine in the past.  See, e.g., King, 576 
U. S.,  at  485–486;  Gonzales,  546  U. S.,  at  267–268.    Nor 
does the dissent really seem to dispute that a major ques-
tion is at stake in this case.  As the dissent observes, the 
agency’s  challenged  action  before  us  concerns  one  of  “the 
greatest . . . challenge[s] of our time.”  Post, at 21.  If this 
case  does  not  implicate  a  “question  of  deep  economic  and 
political significance,” King, 576 U. S., at 486 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted), it is unclear what might.8 
—————— 
rule being jurisdictional); Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U. S. 299, 307 (2011)
(presumption  that  federal  injunctions  don’t  bar  parallel  state  proceed-
ings);  Fowler  v.  United  States,  563  U. S.  668,  677  (2011)  (federalism 
canon); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 237 (2010) (presumption in fa-
vor of judicial review); Holland v. Florida, 560 U. S. 631, 645–646 (2010)
(presumption  in  favor  of  equitable  tolling);  Hamilton  v.  Lanning,  560 
U. S.  505,  517  (2010)  (presumption  that  Bankruptcy  Code  didn’t  erode 
past practice).

8 The  dissent  seeks  to  invoke  Justice  Scalia  as  authority  against  the 
major questions doctrine.  See post, at 31–32.  But the dissent neglects
to mention that Justice Scalia authored or joined several of the Court’s 
major questions decisions, including Brown & Williamson, which the dis-
sent describes as the “key case.”  Post, at 15–16 (citing 529 U. S. 120); see 
also  Whitman  v.  American  Trucking  Assns.,  Inc.,  531  U. S.  457,  468 
(2001); Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 307; A. Scalia, A Note on the Benzene