Meltdown in the Major Questions Doctrine

To the public, Learning Resources v. Trump was a fierce condemnation by the Roberts Court of President Donald Trump’s brash assertions of constitutional power. The Supreme Court flatly rejected the claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provision empowering the President to “regulate . . . importation” in the face of emergency unlocked tariff powers. The New York Times pronounced the decision as a “Declaration of Independence” by the high court. Slate praised the thirteen pages of the Chief’s opinion backed by a majority as “a withering rebuke . . . [a] crisp, confident opinion.” But if you look deeper—for instance, at the remaining 157 pages—it becomes clear that the Court’s conservative majority experienced a catastrophic meltdown. The major questions doctrine exploded on the page, receiving a different interpretation in each of the case’s seven opinions. And the lower courts will have to handle the fallout.