Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper on this subject at a Gray Center research roundtable.

Notes:

• An Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey
• The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill
• The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson
• Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
• The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling
• The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar
• The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin
• The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson
• The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson