Notable Items:

"A statute should be in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt." Canon 38 of Scalia and Garner Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
The Major Questions Doctrine does the reverse assuming unconstitutionality unless there is “clear congressional authorization”.
Per this doctrine, when a unforeseen major question arises, the executive may not operate though its agencies to address the question till after Congress has provided “clear congressional authorization”.
Ignores the possiblity of Congress passing legislation barring agency action taken in response to an unforeseen major question.

Equates a requirement to "more stringently regulate" by states to an "injury" of those states. (See Majority Rationale quoting Part II page 14)
... the Government must--under the major questions doctrine--point to “clear congressional authorization” to regulate in that manner [make decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”]. Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324.
Gorsuch Concurrence lists what he believes to be the conditions that trigger the Major Questions Doctrine and the characteristics of “clear congressional authorization”.

Assuming jurisdiction and justisibility, the instant case could have been decided on the basis of Congress granting authority to regulate each source indivdually. A system-wide regulation could be understood to exceed that authority. “If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view, it is necessary not to decide more to a case, ...." (John Roberts address to Georgetown University law graduates 2015) [Chevron deference?]

Petitioner: West Virginia
Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: West Virginia v. EPA (2022)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

... whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:


Material Facts:

Procedural History:


Roberts Majority Opinion (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)

Gorsuch Concurrance (Alito (xxx)

Kagan Dissent (Breyer, Sotomayor) (xxx)

Full Recounting of Facts

Roberts Majority Full Argument (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)