Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 47

10 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

time when Congress and state legislatures were engaged in
robust  debates  over  vaccine  mandates.    595  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 5); id., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring) (slip op., 
at 3).  Relatedly, this Court has found it telling when Con-
gress  has  “ ‘considered  and  rejected’ ”  bills  authorizing 
something  akin  to  the  agency’s  proposed  course  of  action. 
Ante, at 20, 27 (quoting Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 
144).  That too may be a sign that an agency is attempting
to “ ‘work [a]round’ ” the legislative process to resolve for it-
self  a  question  of  great  political  significance.    NFIB  v. 
OSHA, 595 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring) (slip op., 
at 3).4 

Second, this Court has said that an agency must point to
clear congressional authorization when it seeks to regulate 
“ ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’ ” ante, at 
18  (quoting  Utility  Air,  573  U. S.,  at  324),  or  require  “bil-
lions of dollars in spending” by private persons or entities, 
King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473, 485 (2015).  The Court has 
held that regulating tobacco products, eliminating rate reg-
ulation in the telecommunications industry, subjecting pri-
vate  homes  to  Clean  Air  Act  restrictions,  and  suspending 
local  housing  laws  and  regulations  can  sometimes  check 
this box.  See Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 160; MCI 
Telecommunications  Corp.  v.  American  Telephone  &  Tele-
graph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 231 (1994) (MCI); Utility Air, 573 
U. S., at 324; Alabama Assn. of Realtors, 594 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 6). 

—————— 

4 In the dissent’s view, the Court has erred both today and in the past
by pointing to failed legislation.  Post, at 27–28 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). 
But the Court has not pointed to failed legislation to resolve what a duly 
enacted statutory text means, only to help resolve the antecedent ques-
tion whether the agency’s challenged action implicates a major question. 
The dissent endorses looking to extrinsic evidence to resolve that ques-
tion too.  See post, at 21–22 (discussing whether there is a “mismatch” 
between an agency’s expertise and its challenged action).