So, skipping straight to the point: You think what Biden did was illegal. Why? If the major questions doctrine isn't what you'd use to strike it down, what would you use? If the plaintiffs in Pittman's case aren't the ones you'd grant standing to, maybe because you're not as fucking stupid or partisan as Pittman, how about the ones in the student loan forgiveness case the Supreme Court agreed to decide on the merits before the Court of Appeals had an opportunity to do so? If yes, based on what?
Well, there are a lot of questions here. I will see if I can give you an answer to them, but part of it will just be an explanation of my view of cases like this, so you will understand my position.
First, when I think of the term "illegal," I think of a term that defines conduct for which you can be prosecuted. I understand that generally it just means contrary to law, but I tend to think of it more in terms of the criminal side to things, so no, I do not believe that Biden or his administration/agencies acted in an illegal fashion.
Next, the issue of "standing." Honestly, I've always assumed that judges sort of treat standing as Potter Stewart treated pornography. Not completely sure how you'd define it, but they know it when they see it. Now, is that right? Probably not. But I tend to think that if judges want to decide a case, they find a way to conclude the plaintiff has standing, and if they really don't want to decide a case, they find a way to determine there is no standing. Call me a cynic.
Finally, the issue of agency authority. People get hung up on things like the "major issues doctrine" or other names assigned by the courts or people to what they are doing. But, at the end of the day, it really boils down to these simple things:
Congress needs to be able to delegate authority to agencies. There is simply too much work to do, and they need agency expertise.
When Congress passes laws, they need to delegate that authority. By necessity, that delegation has to be somewhat general. But it can't be too general, otherwise we just basically have governing by non-elected government employees.
This need to be both specific, and general, necessarily always leads to court interpretation of the grant of authority. Since agency delegation was first used (yes, both before and after
Chevron), the question has always basically been, is it reasonable to conclude that Congress granted the agency the authority to do what it is doing?
Those are the hard cases for courts to work with. Reading Congress' mind is not a simple task. I tend to believe that Court's are influenced by a lot of different things in making that determination, but one might certainly be the scope of what the agency proposes to do. I tend to think that the larger and more significant the impact on people and society, and in the absence of detailed delegation language in the law passed by Congress, the more likely it is that a court will question whether Congress really delegated that significant authority to just an agency. In other words, it isn't "reasonable" to conclude that Congress intended to simply pass along that much authority to an agency. Now, whether you want to call that a "major questions doctrine" or simply "unreasonable to assume authority was granted," I don't think it really matters that much.
