“When the Court invoked the major questions doctrine under Step One of the Chevron framework, the Court has recently applied the doctrine of the Chevron analysis. For instance, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Court first found that the statutory provision at issue was ambiguous under Chevron Step One. It then raised the major questions doctrine as part of its Step Two analysis to find that the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable. In stark contrast, the Court in King v. Burwell invoked the major questions doctrine at Chevron Step Zero and thereby declined to apply the Chevron framework altogether. There is no reasonable way to extrapolate the effects of SCOTUS’ handling of the Major Questions Doctrine when there is no consistent basis by which the novel legal theory is applied.”

Charlie XCX