Gorsuch vs. Barrett: Whose interpretation of the major question doctrine is superior and why is it important?

Abstract

Over the past two years, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided two landmark cases in the area of administrative law that will affect the nation for years to come. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Court overturned President Biden’s student loan relief program by ruling that the Secretary of Education did not have the authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that would have canceled roughly $430 billion in debt principal (Biden v. Nebraska, 2023). In West Virginia vs. EPA (2022), the Court concluded that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation-shifting approach the agency took in the Clean Power Plan (West Virginia vs. EPA, 2022). These cases seem quite dissimilar. Student debt has very little connection to environmental protection. However, both decisions relied upon a new legal standard for evaluating when an administrative agency has acted beyond permissibly delegated authority - the major questions doctrine. In both cases, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to limit the actions of a government agency, thus canceling major programs that would have affected the lives of millions of Americans. (from Introduction)