Issues & Insights
Photo via

Supreme Court Reins In The Regulatory Beast

This is reprinted, with permission, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog.

The Supreme Court’s decision today in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is an important brake on the administrative state that has inexorably grown since the New Deal.

The Court held that in issuing new emission caps designed to remake the U.S. power generation industry in an Obama-era Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress under the Clean Air Act. The Court concluded that this was just the latest in “a series of significant cases all addressing a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”

The Court held that this is a “major case” in which the agency, claimed that a little-used statutory section that had always been more conservatively interpreted “empowers it to substantially restructure the American energy market.” Significantly, in invalidating the agency action, the Court cited two recent cases in which it reversed obvious cases of administrative overreach during the pandemic.

In Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that it had authority under the Public Health Service Act to impose a nationwide moratorium on evictions of tenants. The Court articulated and applied the “major questions” doctrine: “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”

A nationwide eviction moratorium certainly qualified as having vast economic and political significance, but nothing in the statute remotely addressed that sort of action. The Court therefore held that “if a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.” 

Similarly, the Court applied the major questions doctrine to invalidate the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine mandate for private workers. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Court decided (6-3) that OSHA had exceeded its authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act by issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard requiring vaccination or testing in workplaces employing at least 100 people. The OSHA mandate impacted tens of millions of private workers and was clearly a major question of vast economic and political significance. But the OSHA Act did not plainly authorize it.

Today’s decision reaffirms that this Supreme Court takes the language and structure of the Constitution seriously and will no longer automatically defer to federal agency statutory interpretations or exertions of broad authority.

Whether it is during a public health or a climate “emergency,” the Constitution places the ultimate policy-making authority in Congress.

Joel M. Zinberg, M.D., J.D., is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • This decision is so hard to believe because since 1950 politics has always been in the control of Federal Lifers who never got elected. That’s a long history of corruption by the Deep State.

    The FBI is one example. Currently, 2 FBI agents cannot be located to receive a subpoena to be in court for breaking laws to prevent Candidate Trump from campaigning in 2016.
    My point is that our system of the Rule of Law is a scam: Officers of the Law at the FBI Headquarters break the law. Yet, NOT One goes to prison.
    Another example is the woman who has broken laws since the age 27. She has never been indicted for 25 crimes in her 30-year career as a Democrat politician.

    My point is that the Democracy that rules us is only applied against the working class. Let me be clearer, those Rules of Law do NOT govern the Rulers (the FBI, the DOJ, or IRS).

    Adam of CA.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!