WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 9, 2024) – A new working paper, Economic Significance in the Major Questions Doctrine, co-authored by TPI Senior Fellow Sarah Oh Lam and TPI Law Intern and Georgetown Law Center law student Miranda Card Lampke, examines the economic dimensions of the major questions doctrine, offering an economic perspective on its application in federal agency rulemaking and judicial review.
The authors set aside political considerations from economic considerations to focus on quantifiable economic facts and how they impact the application of the major questions doctrine in judicial review of federal agency actions. It reviews case law, thresholds, and executive branch regulatory review to illuminate how courts, Congress, and the executive have historically assessed the economic impacts of federal rules. Notable cases like West Virginia v. EPA, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and the recent Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo are analyzed for their economic contexts and the potential ripple effects on regulatory practices.
Key highlights of the article include:
- An examination of how courts define “economically significant” through factors like compliance costs, impacts on specific industries, and broader effects on the national economy.
- A detailed look at the current status of the doctrine post-Loper Bright, with implications for the separation of powers and agency discretion.
- A discussion of how greater clarity is needed in statutory language to guide federal agencies and courts in implementing economically impactful rules.
The working paper serves as a resource for policymakers, legal practitioners, economists, and academics, sparking dialogue on the intersection of law, economics, and regulatory policy. For more information or to schedule an interview with the authors, please contact the Technology Policy Institute at [email protected] or (202) 828-4405.
