Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 17 of 43
question about “the scope of” its own jurisdiction. See Loper Bright , 603 U.S. at 400–01. Rather, because the CFTC’s fresh reading of federal stat- utes exalts its own authority, this case presents a scenario where “abdi- cation in favor of the agency is least appropriate.” See id. at 401. Accounting for the surrounding circumstances, the CFTC’s new posi- tion also does not carry any “particular power to persuade.” See id. at 402 (quotation omitted). The position was prepared for purposes of liti- gation, without input from the public or the States. The position is in- consistent with the CFTC’s past guidance, including guidance offered much closer in time to the enactment of the relevant statutory text. And the position does not arise from any special expertise in the area of sports betting. Considering these features, the CFTC’s position is “inherently suspect.” See Wyeth v. Levine , 555 U.S. 555, 577 (2009). II. The CFTC’s new claim of expansive power also confirms that this case implicates the major-questions doctrine. Under the doctrine, broad and novel claims of federal-agency authority over significant topics must flow from “clear congressional authorization.” West Virginia v. EPA , 597 U.S. at 723 (quotation omitted). The doctrine thus captures scenarios where an agency “claim[s] to discover in a long-extant statute an
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs