Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

4 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

B 
Some have characterized the major questions doctrine as
a strong-form substantive canon designed to enforce Article
I’s Vesting Clause.  See, e.g., C. Sunstein, There Are Two 
“Major Questions” Doctrines, 73 Admin. L. Rev. 475, 483–
484  (2021)  (asserting  that  recent  cases  apply  the  major 
questions  doctrine  as  “a  nondelegation  canon”);  L.  Hein-
zerling, The Power Canons, 58 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1933, 
1946–1948 (2017) (describing the major questions doctrine 
as a “normative” canon that “is both a presumption against 
certain kinds of agency interpretations and an instruction 
to Congress”).  On this view, the Court overprotects the non-
delegation principle by increasing the cost of delegating au-
thority  to  agencies—namely,  by  requiring  Congress  to
speak unequivocally in order to grant them significant rule-
making  power.  See  Barrett  172–176;  see  also  post,  at  27 
(KAGAN, J., dissenting) (describing the major questions doc-
trine as a “heightened-specificity requirement”); Georgia v. 
President of the United States, 46 F. 4th 1283, 1314 (CA11
2022)  (Anderson,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in
part) (“[T]he major questions doctrine is essentially a clear-
statement rule”).  This “clarity tax” might prevent Congress 
from getting too close to the nondelegation line, especially 
since the “intelligible principle” test largely leaves Congress
to self-police.  (So the doctrine would function like constitu-
tional  avoidance.) 
In  addition  or  instead,  the  doctrine 
might reflect the judgment that it is so important for Con-
gress to exercise “[a]ll legislative Powers,” Art. I, §1, that it
should be forced to think twice before delegating substan-
tial  discretion  to  agencies—even  if  the  delegation  is  well
within Congress’s power to make.  (So the doctrine would
function like the rule that Congress must speak clearly to
abrogate state sovereign immunity.)  No matter which ra-
tionale justifies it, this “clear statement” version of the ma-
jor  questions  doctrine  “loads  the  dice”  so  that  a  plausible