Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 32

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–506 
_________________ 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
NEBRASKA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[June 30, 2023] 

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring. 
I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full.  I  write  separately  to
address the States’ argument that, under the “major ques-
tions doctrine,” we can uphold the Secretary of Education’s
loan  cancellation  program  only  if he  points  to  “ ‘clear  con-
gressional authorization’ ” for it.  West Virginia v. EPA, 597 
U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 19).  In this case, the Court 
applies the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation to con-
clude that the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secre-
tary’s plan.  Ante, at 12–18.  The major questions doctrine 
reinforces that conclusion but is not necessary to it.  Ante, 
at 25. 

Still, the parties have devoted significant attention to the
major  questions  doctrine,  and  there  is  an  ongoing  debate
about its source and status.  I take seriously the charge that 
the doctrine is inconsistent with textualism.  West Virginia, 
597  U. S.,  at  ___  (KAGAN,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  28) 
(“When [textualism] would frustrate broader goals, special 
canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear
as get-out-of-text-free cards”).  And I grant that some artic-
ulations of the major questions doctrine on offer—most no-
tably, that the doctrine is a substantive canon—should give
a textualist pause.

Yet  for  the  reasons  that  follow,  I  do  not  see  the  major