Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Exposes Deep Contradictions in Applying ‘Major Questions’ Doctrine Across Presidents

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has criticized his colleagues for inconsistent application of the “major questions doctrine” when evaluating presidential power under former President Donald Trump compared to current President Joe Biden.

Gorsuch authored a 46-page opinion that joined the 6-3 majority striking down most of Trump’s tariffs but sharply questioned how the Court has applied the doctrine depending on who occupies the White House.

His analysis reveals that justices previously critical of the major questions doctrine during Biden’s administration did not object to its use against Trump in this case.

The major questions doctrine holds that sweeping executive actions of vast economic and political significance must be clearly authorized by Congress.

During the Biden presidency, the Court utilized the doctrine to block initiatives including a nationwide eviction moratorium, expansive environmental regulations, and Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

However, in the tariffs case, the conservative majority fractured. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Gorsuch in finding that Trump’s tariffs required congressional involvement. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Gorsuch highlighted what he views as contradictions across the ideological spectrum.

“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” he wrote, referring to liberal justices who sided with the majority against Trump. “Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he added, pointing to the dissenting conservatives.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who has previously criticized the doctrine as a judicial invention that appears when convenient, pushed back in a footnote: “Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one.”

Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William & Mary, noted that Gorsuch’s criticism of Kagan carries weight, arguing it is “hard to square” her opinion with her prior positions.