And they did it with ONE purpose in mind: To dismantle executive branch regulatory functions.
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are 100% right to reject the need to invoke the right-wing version of the "major questions doctrine" in this case.
As originally suggested by Breyer, the "major questions" conceptual framework was NEVER intended to be taken as some strict formulistic rule ( "doctrine" ) that right-wingnut so-called "legal scholars" have transformed it into.
Take with whatever grains of salt you apply to all AI, but here is Gemini's answer to 'Stephen Breyer on the "major questions doctrine"'
Stephen Breyer, both as a judge and Supreme Court Justice, pioneered the foundational logic of the "major questions doctrine," but later opposed its expansion. He originally suggested in 1986 that courts should assume Congress does not delegate major, high-stakes decisions to agencies, focusing them instead on "interstitial" matters. While he provided the conceptual groundwork based on pragmatic statutory interpretation, he later dissented against the current, more restrictive usage of the doctrine.
1986 Origins: Then-Judge Breyer argued that when interpreting statutes, courts should consider whether a legal question is of major economic or political significance.
Pragmatic View: He viewed this as a "useful legal fiction" to manage how Congress delegates power, rather than a strict, formalistic rule.
Administrative Support: Unlike conservative jurists who use the doctrine to curb the administrative state, Breyer as a Justice often found himself in dissent, arguing for more flexibility and agency deference.
Distinction from Current Application: Breyer's original concept was aimed at determining congressional intent in "hard cases," not necessarily as an "outright alternative" to agency deference, as the Supreme Court has later used it.
= new reply since forum marked as read