Justice Barrett Helps Restore Constitutional Order

The justice’s concurrence in the student-loan case clarifies the major-questions doctrine and offers a significant rebuttal of Kagan’s dissent.

Share this story

Judge Amy Coney Barrett at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., September 29, 2020.

Graeme Jennings/Pool via Reuters

Among the most significant opinions issued in this week’s final Supreme Court rulings is Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence in the Court’s invalidation of Biden’s student-loan cancellation (Biden v. Nebraska). As a committed textualist, Justice Barrett rightly perceived the imperative of elaborating on the so-called major-questions doctrine, explaining what it does and does not permit in statutory interpretation.

The student-loan decision manifests that the Court’s conservative majority feels the tension between its avowed statutory textualism and its invocation of a doctrine that is claimed to endorse departures from text — or, at least, from the best interpretation of text. Justice Elena Kagan’s searing criticism of the major-questions doctrine as a “get-out-of-text-free card” clearly left a mark.

Andrew C. McCarthy

About the Author

Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement