{"id":30117,"date":"2022-10-03T10:53:05","date_gmt":"2022-10-03T15:53:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=30117"},"modified":"2022-10-03T10:53:05","modified_gmt":"2022-10-03T15:53:05","slug":"state-supreme-courts-and-the-major-questions-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2022\/10\/state-supreme-courts-and-the-major-questions-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"State Supreme Courts and the \u201cMajor Questions\u201d Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"

When a legislative body delegates authority to an administrative agency, it cannot envision every future scenario, and often uses language that is regrettably\u2014but necessarily\u2014imprecise. Take, for example, the power given the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to exercise \u201cgeneral \"\"<\/a>supervision and control over the waters of the state.\u201d[1]<\/a> Or consider the United States Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s authority to select the \u201cbest system of emission reduction\u201d for certain entities emitting air pollution. (The United States Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the latter provision earlier this summer in West Virginia v. EPA<\/em>). Operationalizing such vaguely worded authority has proven difficult for agencies. Disputes about the true extent of the delegation arise when the agency takes action near the limit of the delegation.<\/p>\n

In the legal skirmishes that result, courts sometimes find the agency has gone too far. The most recent, high-profile example of this is the West Virginia <\/em>case, in which the Court endorsed the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine. The Court examined EPA\u2019s authority to enact a plan to cut emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. To some extent, the plan required a \u201cgeneration shifting\u201d approach mandating a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The Court took a skeptical view of the plan. It held that in certain \u201cextraordinary cases\u201d raising a \u201cmajor question\u201d of \u201ceconomic and political significance,\u201d there is good reason to restrain the scope of an administrative agency\u2019s power, especially if Congress had not clearly delegated authority for the agency to take the questioned action. The Court further explained that the doctrine flows from traditional separation of powers principles inherent in the federal constitution. The holding seems likely to restrict the reach of just about any federal agency\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n

In light of West Virginia<\/em>, will state courts adopt state-level equivalents of the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine, based on the parallel separation of powers principles in state constitutions? In Wisconsin, the answer is not as clear as you might think, particularly in light of two recent Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions rejecting constraints on agency power, even when based on murky conferrals of legislative authority.<\/p>\n

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Wisconsin court will follow suit and adopt some form of the major questions doctrine, given that both courts are perceived to be skeptical of rising agency power. In a 2018 case, for example, the Wisconsin court ended its practice of deferring to agencies\u2019 legal interpretations.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution contain some provisions that are similar. But Wisconsin courts have not always interpreted the state provisions in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of the parallel federal provisions. Instead, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has called the federal decisions \u201ceminent and highly persuasive, but not controlling.\u201d[2]<\/a> One justice wrote that consistency between the two constitutions \u201cis neither mandatory nor assured.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

But to adopt the major questions doctrine, the Wisconsin court would have to get around its 2021 opinions in two cases both captioned Clean Wisconsin v. WDNR. <\/em>\u00a0In the Clean Wisconsin <\/em>cases, the court considered what might be termed a statutory embodiment of the major questions doctrine. Wisconsin Stat. \u00a7 227.10(2m) provides that no agency may implement any \u201cstandard,\u201d \u201crequirement,\u201d or permit condition unless it is \u201cexplicitly required or explicitly permitted\u201d by statute or by rule. I have previously written<\/a> that the statute is part of what seems to be a broader movement toward restricting the authority of Wisconsin administrative agencies.<\/p>\n

So it was somewhat surprising that the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a challenge, based on the statute, to WDNR\u2019s authority to impose certain conditions in environmental permits it had issued. The case turned on a question of statutory interpretation: whether \u201cexplicit\u201d means \u201cspecific,\u201d in other words, whether under \u00a7 227.10(2m) the authority to impose the two disputed conditions must be spelled out via \u201cliteral enumeration or verbatim mention\u201d of the conditions in a statute or rule, or whether the authority must simply be \u201cexpressly conferred and clear.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court concluded that even though no statute or rule spelled out verbatim the authority to impose the conditions, the legislature had explicitly conferred broad authority on WDNR through Wis. Stat. \u00a7 283.31(3)-(5), provisions that charge WDNR with administering the wastewater permitting program and give it the authority to \u201cprescribe conditions for permits\u201d that assure compliance with the law. The court reasoned that an agency \u201cmay rely upon a grant of authority that is explicit but broad when undertaking agency action.\u201d Such broad grants of authority, the court found, comply with the requirements of \u00a7 227.10(2m). WDNR therefore had the power to impose the two challenged permit conditions.<\/p>\n

Put simply, that language does not seem consistent with the thinking behind the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine. Perhaps the Wisconsin court will adopt the doctrine anyway, limiting the Clean Wisconsin <\/em>cases to the facts involved. But one has to wonder whether the result in Clean Wisconsin <\/em>would have been the same, if West Virginia <\/em>had been decided first. In the coming years, many state supreme courts will likely face similar questions surrounding the extent of state agency power.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Wis. Stat. 281.12(1).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> State v. Knapp, <\/em>2005 WI 127, \u00b6 57 (citing McCauley v. Tropic of Cancer<\/em>, 20 Wis. 2d 134, 139, 121 N.W.2d 545 (1963)).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id.<\/em>, \u00b6 131 (Crooks, J. concurring).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When a legislative body delegates authority to an administrative agency, it cannot envision every future scenario, and often uses language that is regrettably\u2014but necessarily\u2014imprecise. Take, for example, the power given the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to exercise \u201cgeneral supervision and control over the waters of the state.\u201d[1] Or consider the United States Environmental Protection […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[126,40,27,122],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitutional-law","category-environmental-law","category-presidency-executive-branch","category-public","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30117"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30117\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30118,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30117\/revisions\/30118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}