Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 39

8 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

babysitter takes the kids on a road trip to an amusement 
park, where they spend two days on rollercoasters and one 
night in a hotel.  Was the babysitter’s trip consistent with 
the parent’s instruction?  Maybe in a literal sense, because
the  instruction  was  open-ended.  But  was  the  trip  con-
sistent with a reasonable understanding of the parent’s in-
struction?  Highly doubtful.  In the normal course, permis-
sion to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take
children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not
on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park.
If  a  parent  were  willing  to  greenlight  a  trip  that  big,  we
would expect much more clarity than a general instruction 
to “make sure the kids have fun.” 

But what if there is more to the story?  Perhaps there is
obvious contextual evidence that the babysitter’s jaunt was
permissible—for example, maybe the parent left tickets to
the amusement park on the counter.  Other clues, though
less obvious, can also demonstrate that the babysitter took
a reasonable view of the parent’s instruction.  Perhaps the
parent  showed  the  babysitter  where  the  suitcases  are,  in 
the event that she took the children somewhere overnight. 
Or  maybe  the  parent  mentioned  that  she  had  budgeted 
$2,000 for weekend entertainment.  Indeed, some relevant 
points of context may not have been communicated by the 
parent  at  all.    For  instance,  we  might  view  the  parent’s
statement differently if this babysitter had taken the chil-
dren on such trips before or if the babysitter were a grand-
parent.

In  my  view,  the  major  questions  doctrine  grows  out  of 
these  same  commonsense  principles  of  communication. 
Just as we would expect a parent to give more than a gen-
eral  instruction  if  she  intended  to  authorize  a  babysitter-
led getaway, we also “expect Congress to speak clearly if it
wishes  to  assign  to  an  agency  decisions  of  vast  ‘economic
and  political  significance.’ ”    Utility  Air,  573  U. S.,  at  324. 
That clarity may come from specific words in the statute,