Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

antidelegation interpretation wins even if the agency’s in-
terpretation is better. 

While  one  could  walk  away  from  our  major  questions
cases with this impression, I do not read them this way.  No 
doubt,  many  of  our  cases  express  an  expectation  of  “clear 
congressional  authorization”  to  support  sweeping  agency 
action.  See, e.g., West Virginia, 597 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at 19); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 
324  (2014);  see  also  Alabama  Assn.  of  Realtors  v.  Depart-
ment of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) 
(per curiam) (slip op., at 6).  But none requires “an ‘unequiv-
ocal  declaration’ ”  from  Congress  authorizing  the  precise
agency action under review, as our clear-statement cases do
in their respective domains.  See Financial Oversight and 
Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investi-
gativo, Inc., 598 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 6).  And 
none purports to depart from the best interpretation of the
text—the hallmark of a true clear-statement rule. 

So  what  work  is  the  major  questions  doctrine  doing  in 
these cases?  I will give you the long answer, but here is the
short  one:  The  doctrine  serves  as  an  interpretive  tool  re-
flecting “common sense as to the manner in which Congress
is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and 
political magnitude to an administrative agency.”  FDA v. 
Brown  &  Williamson  Tobacco  Corp.,  529  U. S.  120,  133 
(2000). 

II 
The  major  questions  doctrine  situates  text  in  context,
which is how textualists, like all interpreters, approach the 
task  at  hand.    C.  Nelson,  What  Is  Textualism?  91  Va. 
L. Rev.  347,  348  (2005)  (“[N]o  ‘textualist’  favors  isolating 
statutory  language  from  its  surrounding  context”);  Scalia
37 (“In textual interpretation, context is everything”).  After 
all, the meaning of a word depends on the circumstances in
which it is used.  J. Manning, The Absurdity Doctrine, 116