Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 26 of 43
(alteration accepted, quotation omitted); see also Learning Res., Inc. , 2026 WL 477534, at *7 (Roberts, C.J., op.) (discussing the need for con- text, common sense, and skepticism when the federal government claims “broad, expansive power on an uncertain statutory basis”). “Extraordi- nary grants of regulatory authority,” the Supreme Court has said, “are rarely accomplished through modest words, vague terms, or subtle de- vices.” West Virginia , 597 U.S. at 723 (alteration accepted, quotation omitted). The major-questions doctrine thus requires a clear statement when- ever a federal agency claims broad and novel authority over matters of great economic and political significance. See id. at 721, 724. Courts should therefore tread cautiously when an agency “‘claim[s] to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power’ representing a ‘transform- ative expansion in its regulatory authority.’” Id. at 724 (alterations ac- cepted, quoting Util. Air Regulatory Group v. EPA , 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). Said differently, a “lack of historical precedent,” “coupled with” a broad claim of federal authority, makes for “a telling indication” of fed- eral overreach. Learning Res., Inc. , 2026 WL 477534, at *9 (Roberts, C.J., op.) (quoting NFIB v. OSHA , 595 U.S. at 119).
20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs