This Note addresses the June 2022 decision of the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA, its official invocation of the “major questions” doctrine, and ultimately argues against its adoption within the state of Minnesota. In West Virginia, the Court held that the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted a portion of the Clean Air Act was impermissible because it substantially restructured the U.S. energy market and thereby implicated a major questions analysis. The doctrine was implied through a line of only five past cases and was given the “major questions” name by legal commentators. The Supreme Court officially adopted the proposed major questions doctrine in West Virginia. In that case, the Court severely inhibited the EPA from creating rules and regulations regarding the increasingly ill effects of greenhouse gases. The decision does not solely affect the EPA’s ability to regulate but affects any executive agency that introduces large regulatory initiatives.
The major questions doctrine is a misguided concept that solely seeks to dismantle the administrative state. Administrative law at both the federal and state level provides sufficient measures to ensure that principles of separation of powers and federalism are adequately addressed. The Supreme Court has a long history of administrative law jurisprudence that can answer the question of whether an executive agency can permissibly regulate based on its statutory authority. Federal and state administrative procedure acts require multiple levels of public participation and judicial review in cases of administrative rulemaking. The only ostensible reason for the Supreme Court to establish the major questions doctrine in questions of vast political significance is to impede the administrative state.
West Virginia is already cited throughout the states in civil actions and administrative hearings to limit state regulatory action. An individual imprisoned in Minnesota cited the case in a motion to file a supplemental brief due to potential relevance to his case, but the motion was ultimately denied by a magistrate judge in the District Court of Minnesota. Nonetheless, the case is used elsewhere to successfully limit state agencies, and it is bound to appear in more Minnesota briefs.
Therefore, it is crucial that Minnesota courts refuse to adopt the major questions doctrine because it unnecessarily impedes state regulatory action. Take one such state agency as an illustrative example, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA describes its mission as “ensuring that every Minnesotan has healthy air, sustainable land, clean water, and a better climate.” The MPCA derives its authority from Minnesota statutes to create rules that achieve this mission. If Minnesota courts adopt the major questions doctrine, agencies like the MPCA would almost surely face fierce opposition to its regulations. This endangers the mission of the MPCA and other state agencies with important objectives. Therefore, Minnesota courts must unequivocally rebuke West Virginia and the major questions doctrine.
Section II.A of this Note is a discussion of the background and procedural history of West Virginia v. EPA, followed by a description of Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion. Section III.A is a brief history of important administrative law concepts at the federal level—some are directly relevant to the West Virginia opinion while others are relevant to the analysis of the major questions doctrine in the context of administrative law precedent. Section III.B turns to the separate system of Minnesota state administrative law, including its own administrative procedure act, with a brief discussion of how state agencies operate.