{"id":2756,"date":"2026-06-23T12:22:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T16:22:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=2756"},"modified":"2026-06-23T12:23:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T16:23:13","slug":"agency-enforcement-proceedings-and-the-major-questions-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print\/volume-23-issue-2-summer-2025\/agency-enforcement-proceedings-and-the-major-questions-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"Agency Enforcement Proceedings and the Major Questions Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly checked the power of federal administrative agencies to change the law through the issuance of regulations.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_1' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_1'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>1<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_1' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #1<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_1' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_1' tabindex='-1'>1<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #1 content: <\/span><em>See, e.g.<\/em>, Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024) (repudiating <em>Chevron<\/em>\ndeference).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t But in 2024, the Supreme Court turned its attention to the substantial power of agencies to enforce laws. In <em>SEC v. Jarkesy<\/em>, the Court held that the Constitution prohibited the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from imposing civil monetary fines for securities fraud in an in-house enforcement proceeding.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_2' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_2'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>2<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_2' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #2<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_2' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_2' tabindex='-1'>2<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #2 content: <\/span>144 S. Ct. 2117, 2139 (2024).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t Especially in light of the Court\u2019s expressed concerns about agencies abusing their enforcement powers,\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_3' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_3'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>3<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_3' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #3<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_3' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_3' tabindex='-1'>3<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #3 content: <\/span><em>See id<\/em>. (refusing to \u201cconcentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the\nExecutive Branch\u201d); id. at 2140\u201341 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (expressing skepticism about the fairness of agency adjudicative processes).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t the limits on those powers will likely receive renewed attention in the coming years.<\/p>\n<p>This Article considers one important constraint on agency authority: the major questions doctrine. That doctrine ensures that agencies do not exercise major powers without clear congressional authorization.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_4' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_4'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>4<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_4' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #4<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_4' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_4' tabindex='-1'>4<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #4 content: <\/span><em>See, e.g<\/em>., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 723 (2022).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t By enforcing that rule, courts ensure that Congress\u2014not agencies\u2014plays the primary role in resolving pressing modern policy questions.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_5' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_5'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>5<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_5' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #5<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_5' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_5' tabindex='-1'>5<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #5 content: <\/span><em>See id<\/em>. at 735\u201342 (Gorsuch, J., concurring); Louis J. Capozzi III, <em>In Defense of the Major<\/em>\n<em>Questions Doctrine<\/em>, 100 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 509 (2025).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<p>In the past few years, the Supreme Court has frequently applied the major questions doctrine to block agencies from changing the law by issuing regulations. But this raises a question: Does the doctrine apply when agencies attempt to change the law through enforcement proceedings?<\/p>\n<p>The answer is yes. Although one recent article argued that the doctrine should be cabined to rulemaking,\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_6' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_6'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>6<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_6' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #6<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_6' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_6' tabindex='-1'>6<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #6 content: <\/span><em>See<\/em> Todd Phillips &amp; Beau J. Baumann, <em>The Major Questions Doctrine\u2019s Domain<\/em>, 89 BROOK.\nL. REV. 747, 755\u201356 (2024) (arguing that the major questions doctrine should be cabined to\nrulemaking); <em>see also<\/em> Fred B. Jacob, <em>The National Labor Relations Act, the Major Questions Doctrine, and Labor Peace in the Modern Workplace<\/em>, 65 B.C. L. REV. 1381, 1437 (2024) (suggesting major questions doctrine should usually not apply to NLRB and focusing on its \u201creactive\u201d regulatory approach in adjudications). Although no other article has focused on whether the major questions doctrine applies to agency enforcement actions, Chris Brummer, Yesha Yadav, and David Zaring recently suggested the doctrine would apply to agency efforts to regulate digital currencies through enforcement proceedings. <em>See<\/em> Chris Brummer et al., <em>Regulation by Enforcement<\/em>, 96 S. CAL. L. REV. 1297, 1328\u2013\u201329 (2024).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t the rationales behind the major questions doctrine apply with full force to agency enforcement proceedings\u2014whether through in-house adjudications or enforcement actions in court. Although most cases featuring the major questions doctrine have featured rulemakings, the Supreme Court has also applied the major questions doctrine in the context of agency enforcement proceedings.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_7' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_7'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>7<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_7' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #7<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_7' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_7' tabindex='-1'>7<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #7 content: <\/span><em>See<\/em> Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129\u201330 (1958) (applying the major questions doctrine to an\nagency in-house adjudication); ICC v. Cincinnati, New Orleans &amp; Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 167 U.S. 479,\n493, 511 (1897) (applying the major questions doctrine to an agency in-court enforcement proceeding); <em>see also<\/em> Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 248\u201349 (2006) (applying the major questions doctrine to an agency\u2019s interpretive rule explaining how the agency would enforce statute).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t Whether analyzed using a formalist or functionalist approach to the separation of powers,\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_8' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_8'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>8<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_8' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #8<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_8' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_8' tabindex='-1'>8<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #8 content: <\/span><em>See generally<\/em> Thomas A. Koenig &amp; Benjamin R. Pontz, <em>The Roberts Court\u2019s Functionalist Turn<\/em>\n<em>in Administrative Law<\/em>, 46 HARV. J.L. &amp; PUB. POL\u2019Y 221 (2023) (summarizing the formalist and\nfunctionalist approaches to administrative law).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t applying the major questions doctrine to enforcement proceedings is necessary to prevent agencies from exercising legislative power and unduly aggrandizing their authority at Congress\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n<p>This Article proceeds as follows. Part I briefly surveys the different modes of agency actions, focusing on how agencies change the law through the issuance of regulations, in-house adjudications, and in-court enforcement actions. Part II summarizes the major questions doctrine and its resurgence in recent years. Part III argues that the major questions doctrine should apply to enforcement proceedings. Part IV addresses counterarguments, including those offered in a recent article taking the contrary position.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_9' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_9'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>9<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_2756_9' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #9<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_2756_9' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_2756_9' tabindex='-1'>9<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #9 content: <\/span>Phillips &amp; Baumann, <em>supra<\/em> note 6, at 755\u201356.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2026\/06\/23.2-Capozzi.pdf\">Continue reading Agency Enforcement Proceedings and the Major Questions Doctrine<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly checked the power of federal administrative agencies to change the law through the issuance of regulations. But in 2024, the Supreme Court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":2728,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-2756","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2756"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2756\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2759,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2756\/revisions\/2759"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2728"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}