Supreme Court Establishes 'Major Questions Doctrine,' Changing Balance Of Power In U.S. Government While Further Fueling Heated Online Debates

A new series of Supreme Court decisions issued this week has attracted controversy, memes and jokes online, as Americans reconsider the role and structure of the highest court in light of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Clinic decision that last week took away the constitutional right to an abortion.

Possibly the most impactful decision of the term, from the perspective of governance, is West Virginia vs. EPA, in which the conservative majority of the Court held 6-3 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to limit the emissions of power plants.

The Court’s ruling challenges what has been a central pillar of modern American government: The ability of federal agencies to interpret the instructions Congress gives them in laws. The EPA started limiting emissions because it thought the Clean Air Act of 1970 gave it the authority to do so. Other federal agencies make decisions like this every day, because laws rarely cover every single detail of an issue and can sometimes even be vague.

But the Supreme Court ruled, under a controversial and extra-constitutional justification called the Major Questions Doctrine, that executive branch agencies cannot make decisions on "major questions," and instead it is Congress or the Supreme Court that must decide.

The six conservative justices did not define what makes a question “major” or how specific the language in laws needs to be. The Court’s decision has opened up every federal agency (which are already overseen by Congress) to lawsuits limiting their power.

For conservatives who want a smaller government, the ruling was seen as a win because it limits the power of the informal bureaucracy, what some term the “fourth branch” of American administrative state.

But many were also disturbed or angered by the ruling because it increased the power of another branch — the judiciary. The Supreme Court now has an extensive ability to control the decision-making process of agencies in the executive branch and tell them how to interpret instructions from Congress.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in the EPA case earned a lot of attention online as the contentious decision made waves online and sparked viral debates on platforms like Twitter.

Another case involved the rights and sovereignty of Native American nations within the United States. In a 5-4 ruling, in which Justice Gorsuch ditched his fellow conservatives to join with the liberal minority, the Court found that Native American law is subordinate to state law.

Gorsuch has historically been sympathetic on Native American issues, often siding with his liberal justices when a case about treaty obligations or the legal status of Native Americans comes up.

On Thursday, the Court also swore in Ketanji Brown Jackson as an Associate Justice, and finalized the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. She is the first Black woman on the Court, and enters the position at a difficult and contentious moment in the Court’s history.

Now on @MSNBC:Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, making her the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court. https://t.co/RdYLvfum24 pic.twitter.com/k9o0EbChLR

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 30, 2022

Many, including President Joe Biden, have supported looking into reforms to the Court, such as increasing the number of Justices (which is not set by the Constitution) adding term limits or changing the way justices are selected and appointed.

Further, members of the Court have been doxxed in recent days amid widespread outrage about the Court's rulings, even including their credit card info being leaked.