An appeals court last month ruled against an Obama-era policy protecting undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. The Supreme Court in January stopped Biden’s vaccine or testing mandate for major employers. And in June, the Supreme Court shot down an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to curb emissions from power plants.
Those decisions follow years of pressure from conservatives to curb the “administrative state,” arguing that agencies should have less power to act unless there is clear congressional approval. The Supreme Court backed that effort in June by relying on the “important questions doctrine” to rule on a high-profile climate change case.
“If the government wants to put forward many of its priorities, it will have to do so through the regulatory process, and that will raise ‘big question’ challenges,” said Ian Gershengorn, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer. “Anytime an agency wants to push the boundaries a bit… this doctrine will come into play.”
Republicans captured the House majority late Wednesday, more than a week after the Nov. 8 election, meaning the chamber will be at odds with the White House pretty much every time. Presidents of both parties have often turned to agency regulations and executive measures when they fail to get an agenda through Congress.
But according to the big questions doctrine, courts are supposed to be skeptical of those rules if they have a major impact on the economy or are a matter of major “political significance.” The meaning of those terms isn’t entirely clear, and experts are still debating exactly how and when courts should invoke the principle.
