Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

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

15 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

skepticism.”  Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324.  

Fourth, skepticism may be merited when there is a mis-
match between an agency’s challenged action and its con-
gressionally  assigned  mission  and  expertise.    Ante,  at  25. 
As the Court explains, “[w]hen an agency has no compara-
tive expertise in making certain policy judgments, . . . Con-
gress  presumably  would  not  task  it  with  doing  so.”    Ibid. 
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).  So, for 
example, in Alabama Assn. of Realtors, this Court rejected
an attempt by a public health agency to regulate housing.
594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  And in NFIB v. OSHA, the 
Court rejected an effort by a workplace safety agency to or-
dain “broad public health measures” that “f[ell] outside [its] 
sphere of expertise.”  595 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6).5 

Asking these questions again yields a clear answer in our 
case.  See ante, at 28–31.  As the Court details, the agency
before us cites no specific statutory authority allowing it to 
transform the Nation’s electrical power supply.  See ante, 
at 28.  Instead, the agency relies on a rarely invoked statu-
tory  provision  that  was  passed  with  little  debate  and  has
been characterized as an “obscure, never-used section of the 
law.”  Ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted).  Nor 
has  the  agency  previously  interpreted  the  relevant  provi-
sion to confer on it such vast authority; there is no original, 
longstanding, and consistent interpretation meriting judi-

—————— 

5 The dissent not only agrees that a mismatch between an agency’s ex-
pertise and its challenged action is relevant to the major questions doc-
trine analysis; the dissent suggests that such a mismatch is necessary to 
the doctrine’s application.  See post, at 14–15.  But this Court has never 
taken that view.  See, e.g., ICC v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 167 
U. S. 479, 505 (1897) (interstate commerce agency regulating interstate
railroad commerce); Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Pe-
troleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 645 (1980) (plurality opinion) (workplace 
safety agency regulating workplace carcinogens); Brown & Williamson, 
529 U. S., at 159–160 (drug agency regulating tobacco); King v. Burwell, 
576 U. S. 473, 485–486 (2015) (tax agency administering tax credits).