Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 23

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000).  In the 
ordinary case, that context has no great effect on the appro-
priate  analysis.  Nonetheless,  our  precedent  teaches  that
there are “extraordinary cases” that call for a different ap-
proach—cases in which the “history and the breadth of the
authority  that  [the  agency]  has  asserted,”  and  the  “eco-
nomic and political significance” of that assertion, provide 
a  “reason  to  hesitate  before  concluding  that  Congress” 
meant to confer such authority.  Id., at 159–160. 

Such cases have arisen from all corners of the adminis-
trative  state.    In  Brown  &  Williamson,  for  instance,  the 
Food  and  Drug  Administration  claimed  that  its  authority 
over “drugs” and “devices” included the power to regulate,
and  even  ban,  tobacco  products.    Id.,  at  126–127.  We  re-
jected that “expansive construction of the statute,” conclud-
ing  that  “Congress  could  not  have  intended  to  delegate”
such a sweeping and consequential authority “in so cryptic
a fashion.”  Id., at 160.  In Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. De-
partment of Health  and Human  Servs., 594  U. S. ___, ___ 
(2021)  (per curiam)  (slip  op.,  at  3),  we  concluded  that  the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could not, un-
der its authority to adopt measures “necessary to prevent
the . . . spread of ” disease, institute a nationwide eviction 
moratorium in response to the COVID–19 pandemic.  We 
found the statute’s language a “wafer-thin reed” on which 
to rest such a measure, given “the sheer scope of the CDC’s
claimed authority,” its “unprecedented” nature, and the fact 
that  Congress  had  failed  to  extend  the  moratorium  after
previously having done so.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 6–8). 
Our decision in Utility Air addressed another question re-
garding EPA’s authority—namely, whether EPA could con-
strue the term “air pollutant,” in a specific provision of the 
Clean Air Act, to cover greenhouse gases.  573 U. S., at 310. 
Despite its textual plausibility, we noted that the Agency’s
interpretation  would  have  given  it  permitting  authority
over  millions  of  small  sources,  such  as  hotels  and  office