King v. Burwell: Limits on the Scope of the Major Questions Doctrine [No. 86]

Professor Kristin Hickman uses the case of King versus Burwell to explain the Major Questions Doctrine. Some administrative agency rulemaking involves matters of such importance that the Supreme Court evaluates the merits of a particular rule rather than automatically deferring to the authority of the agency. The difficulty is - how does the Court decide what issues are important enough to warrant using the Major Questions exception?
Professor Kristin E. Hickman is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
• Administrative Law [Co...

[@ME-jc7xi]

You should make a video regarding the irs code for income tax. The w4 form by law is to be used only by nonresident alien individual's. And the w9 for resident alien individual's. There is no law requirements for the average American to file or pay income tax both federal and state. Based on the tax code and regulations. The treasury decisions. Supreme court rulings.

[@9879SigmundS]

Arbitrary. Overturn Chevron and restore a little liberty.

[@nateo200]

Ironically, I think Robert H. Jackson would have said this years ago if he were alive to see how bad Administrative Law has gotten. The first time I heard how the Board of Immigration Appeals "reversed" a Court of a Appeals, I actually didn't believe then-Judge Gorsuch's description. I can't imagine feel as though I was fulfilling my oath as an Article III Judge with separations of power all muckey and not clearly defined all while getting pushed around by the branches I am supposed to be reviewing

[@9879SigmundS]

@@nateo200 yes. And, of course, Justice Scalia, the author of Auer, eventually being critical of it. The way the administrative state has turned I to the deep state through judicial decisions that the author of those decisions did not anticipate is perhaps the most profound argument for the formalistic approach to the separation of powers rather than the Court's functional approach. But even Scalia did not see this, and he is one of the few that advocate for the formal approach. Well, we might be losing our liberty but at least we can enjoy the mounting irony.