Utah v. Su_Amicus Brief_FINAL FOR FILING_2024.03.26

Rather, West Virginia explains that cases “extraordinary” enough to trigger the doctrine have been ones “in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a reason to hesitate.” 142 S. [...] Both opinions also followed the same order of analysis—addressing first the history, then the breadth, and only then the economic and 3 political significance of the action at issue. [...] In West Virginia, the Supreme Court stressed that only “extraordinary cases” call for application of the major questions doctrine—“cases in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” 142 S. [...] Although the Supreme Court often references economic and political significance in its major questions precedents, its application of the doctrine has placed far greater emphasis on the history and the breadth of the authority that the agency has asserted. [...] Starting with history, the first five paragraphs of West Virginia’s legal analysis of the triggers for the major questions doctrine address the history of EPA’s comparable exercises of authority.