Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

lawmakers intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign im-
munity.  Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 450 (1793) (Ire-
dell, J., dissenting); see Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 
517 U. S. 44, 55 (1996).  In a similar vein, Justice Story ob-
served  that  “[i]t  is  a  general  rule  in  the  interpretation  of 
legislative acts not to construe them to embrace the sover-
eign  power  or  government,  unless  expressly  named  or  in-
cluded by necessary implication.”  United States v. Greene, 
26 F. Cas. 33, 34 (No. 15, 258) (CC Me. 1827).

The  major  questions  doctrine  works  in  much  the  same 
way  to  protect  the  Constitution’s  separation  of  powers. 
Ante, at 19.  In Article I, “the People” vested “[a]ll” federal 
“legislative powers . . . in Congress.”  Preamble; Art. I, § 1. 
As  Chief  Justice  Marshall  put  it,  this  means  that  “im-
portant subjects . . . must be entirely regulated by the leg-
islature  itself,”  even  if  Congress  may  leave  the  Executive 
“to act under such general provisions to fill up the details.” 
Wayman v.  Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 42–43 (1825).  Doubt-
less, what qualifies as an important subject and what con-
stitutes a detail may be debated.  See, e.g., Gundy v. United 
States, 588 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip 
op., at 4–6); id., at ___–___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip
op., at 10–12).  But no less than its rules against retroactive 
legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitu-
tion’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is
“vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of gov-
ernment ordained by the Constitution.”  Marshall Field & 
Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).

It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—
a  thing  of  the  people—would  be  more  likely  to  enact  just 
laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely
unaccountable “ministers.”  The Federalist No. 11, p. 85 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).  From time to time, some