Major Questions Doctrine Could Limit Presidential Power, Impacting Trump-Era Policies

The "major questions doctrine," a legal concept gaining prominence, could significantly impact the scope of presidential authority and potentially unravel some of the policies enacted during Donald Trump's initial months in office. This doctrine asserts that if a government agency intends to make decisions with substantial economic or political consequences, it must receive clear authorization from Congress.

Essentially, the doctrine prevents agencies from overstepping their bounds and implementing sweeping changes without explicit legislative approval. This principle is rooted in the idea that major policy decisions should be made by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.

Legal scholars argue that the major questions doctrine could be applied to challenge several actions taken during Trump's presidency, particularly those involving deregulation and environmental policy. For example, the rollback of certain environmental regulations could be scrutinized under this doctrine, as they had significant economic and societal ramifications.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions indicate a growing willingness to apply the major questions doctrine. This trend suggests a potential rebalancing of power between the executive and legislative branches, with the courts playing a crucial role in defining the limits of agency authority. The implications of this legal doctrine could reshape the landscape of administrative law and influence future presidential administrations.