Document Type


Publication Date



Following Biden v. Nebraska, defenders of the major questions doctrine (which requires administrative agencies to identify “clear congressional authorization” to regulate “major” issues) can be categorized as falling within one of two camps. The first camp includes Justices Gorsuch and Alito, who view the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon. The second camp includes Justice Barrett, who explained in Nebraska that she is “wary” of adopting new substantive canons, and indicated that she considers the major questions doctrine to be a linguistic canon. Interestingly, both camps have relied on an influential scholar to advance their positions: then Professor (now Justice) Barrett. This Article will therefore also work within Justice Barrett’s scholarly framework, but will do so to make two points. First, that textualists have reason to object to both the substantive and linguistic conceptions of the major questions doctrine that are currently on offer. And second, that the major questions doctrine can be reformulated into a new substantive canon that textualists can embrace.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.