Telecommunications price deregulation In
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co. (1994), Justice
Scalia wrote the decision of the Court rejecting an effort by the
Federal Communications Commission to deregulate prices charged by
common carriers. Even though the Communications Act required common carriers to file "
tariffs" setting fixed prices for their service, the FCC relied on a provision allowing it to "modify any requirement" in order to make this requirement optional. The Court held that statutory authorization to "modify" refers only to smaller changes, and does not extend to setting aside entirely such a significant statutory mandate. The dissenting justices would have upheld the FCC's deregulatory interpretation under
Chevron.
Tobacco and cigarettes In
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), Justice
O'Connor wrote that the authority of the
Food and Drug Administration to regulate "drugs" or "devices" did not extend to regulating cigarettes and tobacco, relying in part on "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" (citing
MCI v. AT&T). The Court noted that if the FDA's interpretation were correct, then the FDA would have a duty to prohibit cigarettes entirely (because they are unsafe and non-therapeutic devices).
Air quality standards In ''
Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.'' (2001), a decision holding that Congress unambiguously directed the
Environmental Protection Agency to set
NAAQS clean air standards without considering costs, Justice Scalia wrote for the Court that "Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes."
Assisted suicide In
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court held that the
Attorney General did not have authority under the
Controlled Substances Act to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in
physician-assisted suicide where allowed by state law. A.G.
Alberto Gonzales had relied on a statutory provision allowing him to revoke a physician's prescription-drug registration when "inconsistent with the public interest". Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said that "[t]he importance of the issue of physician-assisted suicide, which has been the subject of an 'earnest and profound debate' across the country, [
Washington v. Glucksberg], 521 U.S., at 735, makes the oblique form of the claimed delegation all the more suspect."
Small sources of carbon emissions In
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), the Court held that, for purposes of a portion of the
Clean Air Act regulating "small sources", the phrase "air pollutants" did not extend to carbon dioxide. Even though the Court had held in
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that "air pollutants" as used in another section of the statute included carbon dioxide, a majority in
UARG v. EPA rejected that same interpretation because it would allow EPA to regulate "the operation of millions[] of small sources nationwide" including "large office and residential buildings, hotels, large retail establishments, and similar facilities". Because of that, the Court said that it would first expect Congress to speak clearly before sweeping in such a broad swath of the American economy.
Affordable Care Act subsidies In
King v. Burwell (2015), a case interpreting the
Affordable Care Act, the decision of Chief Justice
Roberts declined to apply
Chevron deference based on the major questions doctrine. The statute, which gives subsidies to insurance plans bought on exchanges "established by the State", was interpreted by the
Department of Health and Human Services to also apply to an exchange established by the federal government. HHS relied in part on
Chevron deference to support its interpretation, but the Court said that the agency was not entitled to deference. And even though the Court stated that "the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase" went against HHS, nevertheless the Court agreed that HHS's reading was the correct one based on the larger statutory scheme.
COVID-19 eviction moratorium In ''
Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services'' (2021) (
per curiam), the Court concluded that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could not institute a
nationwide eviction moratorium under its authority to adopt measures "necessary to prevent the [...] spread of" disease. The decision also noted that "[t]he moratorium intrudes into an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship" and that "'[o]ur precedents require Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property'" (quoting ''
United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n'' (2020)).
COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers Biden v. Missouri (2022) (
per curiam)
COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workplaces National Federation of Independent Business v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2022) (
per curiam)
Greenhouse gases In
West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Supreme Court held, in a decision by Chief Justice
Roberts that the phrase "best system of emission reduction [...] adequately demonstrated" (BSER) in section 111 of the
Clean Air Act () did not allow
EPA to set emissions standards based on phasing out coal or natural gas, but rather only based on techniques to improve efficiency within each type of energy generation. The Court said that this "generation shifting" approach (rather than a "technology-based approach"), adopted for the first time in the 2015
Clean Power Plan, was an "unheralded power" and "transformative expansion" of the agency's "regulatory authority" found in an "ancillary provision" "that was designed to function as a gap filler and had rarely been used in the preceding decades" in order "to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to enact itself" that "essentially adopted a
cap-and-trade scheme, or set of state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon" and would allow "unprecedented power over American industry". Accordingly, the Court concluded that the EPA would have needed "clear congressional authorization" to overcome the Court's skepticism that Congress would have legislated in such a manner.
Student loan forgiveness In
Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Court relied in part on the major questions doctrine in its holding that Congress did not authorize the Department of Education to institute a sweeping student loan forgiveness program under the
HEROES Act of 2003. Justice
Barrett also filed a concurring opinion specifically devoted to analyzing the doctrine and its origins. She argued that it is not a
clear statement rule in tension with
textualism but rather a contextual and intuitive
linguistic canon for determining the plain meaning of a statute.
Tariffs During his second term, Donald Trump invoked the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on imported goods from numerous countries, claiming they were needed for national security. Multiple lawsuits challenged these tariffs, which decisions from both the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia and
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit both ruled that the IEEPA did not give Trump authority to levy tariffs in this manner, with the Federal Circuit Appeals Court further stating the tariffs violated the major questions doctrine. In the consolidated case
Learning Resources v. Trump, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of IEEPA to establish tariffs in February 2026 in a 6–3 decision. The majority opinion by Chief Justice
Roberts relied on the major questions doctrine in undoing the tariffs, Justice
Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, though dissenting and other concurring justices disagreed with applying the principle in this case. ==See also==