Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump produced at least four distinct visions of the major questions doctrine. Chief Justice Roberts's plurality treated the doctrine as a separation-of-powers canon requiring clear congressional authorization before the Executive may exercise Article I prerogatives like the taxing power. Justice Gorsuch offered a lengthy historical defense of the doctrine's constitutional roots, tracing it from the nondelegation principles of the Founding era and arguing it is fundamentally "pro-Congress." Justice Kagan, concurring in the judgment, rejected the doctrine as unnecessary and potentially dangerous, contending it has been used to override rather than discover the best reading of delegation statutes. And Justice Kavanaugh's dissent argued that the major questions framework should not apply with equal force to emergency powers and foreign-affairs statutes.
The decision raises immediate practical questions. Does the major questions doctrine now apply to all exercises of delegated authority by the Executive, or only in cases involving core Article I powers? What weight should lower courts give to the plurality's analysis versus Justice Kagan's concurrence, which reached the same result on narrower grounds? How should agencies and regulated parties assess litigation risk in light of the doctrine's uncertain vote count? And what room, if any, remains for the government to invoke emergency powers or foreign-affairs considerations as a basis for more deferential review? This panel will discuss the practical implications of Learning Resources for administrative law practitioners, agency counsel, and litigants challenging executive action.
Featuring:
- Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler; Adjunct Fellow, The Manhattan Institute
- Prof. Kristin Hickman, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, McKnight Presidential - - ----- Professor in Law, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in - - - Law, Associate Director, Corporate Institute, University of Minnesota Law School
- Prof. Gillian Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School
- Max Sarinsky, Legal Director, Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law
- (Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington University 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.
The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump produced at least four distinct visions of the major questions doctrine. Chief Justice Roberts's plurality treated the doctrine as a separation-of-powers canon requiring clear congressional authorization before the Executive may exercise Article I prerogatives like the taxing power. Justice Gorsuch offered a lengthy historical defense of the doctrine's constitutional roots, tracing it from the nondelegation principles of the Founding era and arguing it is fundamentally "pro-Congress." Justice Kagan, concurring in the judgment, rejected the doctrine as unnecessary and potentially dangerous, contending it has been used to override rather than discover the best reading of delegation statutes. And Justice Kavanaugh's dissent argued that the major questions framework should not apply with equal force to emergency powers and foreign-affairs statutes.
The decision raises immediate practical questions. Does the major questions doctrine now apply to all exercises of delegated authority by the Executive, or only in cases involving core Article I powers? What weight should lower courts give to the plurality's analysis versus Justice Kagan's concurrence, which reached the same result on narrower grounds? How should agencies and regulated parties assess litigation risk in light of the doctrine's uncertain vote count? And what room, if any, remains for the government to invoke emergency powers or foreign-affairs considerations as a basis for more deferential review? This panel will discuss the practical implications of Learning Resources for administrative law practitioners, agency counsel, and litigants challenging executive action.
Featuring:
- Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler; Adjunct Fellow, The Manhattan Institute
- Prof. Kristin Hickman, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, McKnight Presidential - - ----- Professor in Law, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in - - - Law, Associate Director, Corporate Institute, University of Minnesota Law School
- Prof. Gillian Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School
- Max Sarinsky, Legal Director, Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law
- (Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington University 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.
![[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qH5H8qXjJ34/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
• Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world as if there had been no expropriation.
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
• Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
• Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
• United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
• Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
• Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.
Featuring:
• Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
• Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
• Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
• Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
• Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
• (Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2026
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
