Paul v. United States
Paul v. United States
Opinion
I agree with the denial of certiorari because this case ultimately raises the same statutory interpretation issue that the Court resolved last Term in
Gundy v.
United States
, 588 U. S. ----,
In the wake of Justice Rehnquist's opinion, the Court has not adopted a nondelegation principle for major questions. But the Court has applied a closely related statutory interpretation doctrine: In order for an executive or independent agency to exercise regulatory authority over a major policy question of great economic and political importance, Congress must either: (i) expressly and specifically decide the major policy question itself and delegate to the agency the authority to regulate and enforce; or (ii) expressly and specifically delegate to the agency the authority both to decide the major policy question and to regulate and enforce. See,
e.g.,
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA
,
The opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Justice GORSUCH would not allow that second category-congressional delegations to agencies of authority to decide major policy questions-even if Congress expressly and specifically delegates that authority. Under their approach, Congress could delegate to agencies the authority to decide less-major or fill-up-the-details decisions.
Like Justice Rehnquist's opinion 40 years ago, Justice GORSUCH's thoughtful Gundy opinion raised important points that may warrant further consideration in future cases.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ronald W. PAUL v. UNITED STATES
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Relating-to