Tariff insanity undone by the MQD would be funny
One thing nobody's talking about is whether Congress really gave the president the power to singlehandedly upend decades of tax and trade policy.
April 2, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Tariff insanity undone by the MQD would be funny
Happy MQD/PQP/Loyalty Points/Tiles/Miles reset day!
January 1, 2025 at 5:14 AM
Happy MQD/PQP/Loyalty Points/Tiles/Miles reset day!
DOJ: At the discretion of the President is consistent w/ arbitrary+capricious. It just shows it is not arbitrary or capricious.
IT: Seems to me it gets us back to the MQD.
S: Intervenor states in a different positoin on the MQD. We often like the MQD.
IT: That's what I thought.
IT: Seems to me it gets us back to the MQD.
S: Intervenor states in a different positoin on the MQD. We often like the MQD.
IT: That's what I thought.
September 3, 2026 at 2:09 PM
DOJ: At the discretion of the President is consistent w/ arbitrary+capricious. It just shows it is not arbitrary or capricious.
IT: Seems to me it gets us back to the MQD.
S: Intervenor states in a different positoin on the MQD. We often like the MQD.
IT: That's what I thought.
IT: Seems to me it gets us back to the MQD.
S: Intervenor states in a different positoin on the MQD. We often like the MQD.
IT: That's what I thought.
💯
Relatedly- Roberts’ executive branch also has expansive powers to subordinate racial others, and (under MQD) simultaneously has no powers to regulate unequal economic power.
Using seemingly neutral frames (colorblindness, executive powers etc) to consistently drive an anti-egalitarian politics
Relatedly- Roberts’ executive branch also has expansive powers to subordinate racial others, and (under MQD) simultaneously has no powers to regulate unequal economic power.
Using seemingly neutral frames (colorblindness, executive powers etc) to consistently drive an anti-egalitarian politics
June 25, 2026 at 2:58 PM
💯
Relatedly- Roberts’ executive branch also has expansive powers to subordinate racial others, and (under MQD) simultaneously has no powers to regulate unequal economic power.
Using seemingly neutral frames (colorblindness, executive powers etc) to consistently drive an anti-egalitarian politics
Relatedly- Roberts’ executive branch also has expansive powers to subordinate racial others, and (under MQD) simultaneously has no powers to regulate unequal economic power.
Using seemingly neutral frames (colorblindness, executive powers etc) to consistently drive an anti-egalitarian politics
Trump SG John Sauer debuts THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS EXCEPTION to the MQD. If you're playing a SCOTUS drinking game, take a sip.
November 5, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Trump SG John Sauer debuts THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS EXCEPTION to the MQD. If you're playing a SCOTUS drinking game, take a sip.
the MQD only applies to Democrats
February 3, 2025 at 2:04 PM
the MQD only applies to Democrats
MQD is very very stupid even if it was helpful this time
February 20, 2026 at 3:20 PM
MQD is very very stupid even if it was helpful this time
PL2: Even that claim, as USPS, we have the power to turn away mail, is a seizure of a core congressional power that would trigger the MQD.
When you have something regulating one of the most common forms of voting in our country, precisely the type of political question triggers the MQD
When you have something regulating one of the most common forms of voting in our country, precisely the type of political question triggers the MQD
September 3, 2026 at 2:15 PM
PL2: Even that claim, as USPS, we have the power to turn away mail, is a seizure of a core congressional power that would trigger the MQD.
When you have something regulating one of the most common forms of voting in our country, precisely the type of political question triggers the MQD
When you have something regulating one of the most common forms of voting in our country, precisely the type of political question triggers the MQD
I guess he's saying that in their separate writing they're *effectively* doing MQD, which I think is just wrong.
February 20, 2026 at 3:33 PM
I guess he's saying that in their separate writing they're *effectively* doing MQD, which I think is just wrong.
but the full decision invokes MQD.
February 20, 2026 at 3:31 PM
but the full decision invokes MQD.
Straight into my veins. Ordinary statutory interpretation and constitutional requirements adequately addresses delegation. Gorsuch's MQD, invented out of wholecloth, should have no role in deciding separation of powers cases.
Gorsuch also tries to conscript Kagan to the major questions camp in his concurrence, prompting Kagan to write this very funny footnote saying she is not, in fact, a convert to his cause. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
February 20, 2026 at 3:36 PM
Straight into my veins. Ordinary statutory interpretation and constitutional requirements adequately addresses delegation. Gorsuch's MQD, invented out of wholecloth, should have no role in deciding separation of powers cases.
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK FHRUDNFKSCNECME WND WD MQD WDM M QFMVWFVMWD MQ
February 20, 2025 at 11:56 PM
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK FHRUDNFKSCNECME WND WD MQD WDM M QFMVWFVMWD MQ
Kavanaugh: Broad delegations to unaccountable agencies are dangerous for individual liberty! We have used the major questions doctrine to prevent agencies from overreaching.
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
December 8, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Kavanaugh: Broad delegations to unaccountable agencies are dangerous for individual liberty! We have used the major questions doctrine to prevent agencies from overreaching.
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
Sauer: MQD not a substitute for the removal power for the president
For the conservatives in the majority, the two main functions of this decision in descending order were: (1) Protecting their investments and (2) Giving the MQD some veneer of respectability and legitimacy. MQD is a "good" way to aggrandize the judiciary. It's a shitty way to police the executive.
looks like the one hangup from the liberals was the need to invoke the "major questions" doctrine since less weighted interpretations would've sufficed. but on the main substance all six agreed that the "emergency powers" use of tariffs doesn't fly
6-3 on the surface—Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, and the three liberals—but it’ll take a full read to untangle the details.
February 20, 2026 at 3:26 PM
For the conservatives in the majority, the two main functions of this decision in descending order were: (1) Protecting their investments and (2) Giving the MQD some veneer of respectability and legitimacy. MQD is a "good" way to aggrandize the judiciary. It's a shitty way to police the executive.
John Roberts' media cultivation as Mr. Balls & Strikes has been astounding on how long it's been maintained.
This concern for cost really calls back to the Major Questions Doctrine. MQD now reads more like a constitutionalization of CJ Roberts' own preferences in retrospect.
This concern for cost really calls back to the Major Questions Doctrine. MQD now reads more like a constitutionalization of CJ Roberts' own preferences in retrospect.
April 18, 2026 at 3:35 PM
The liberal nonprofit and political world should be classifying each SCOTUS decision since Sept 29, 2005 when John Roberts took his seat. Classified as
consistent with longstanding law and precedent or not.
Made-up doctrines of the Roberts court like the MQD and gun “history and tradition” should
consistent with longstanding law and precedent or not.
Made-up doctrines of the Roberts court like the MQD and gun “history and tradition” should
January 2, 2026 at 12:32 AM
The liberal nonprofit and political world should be classifying each SCOTUS decision since Sept 29, 2005 when John Roberts took his seat. Classified as
consistent with longstanding law and precedent or not.
Made-up doctrines of the Roberts court like the MQD and gun “history and tradition” should
consistent with longstanding law and precedent or not.
Made-up doctrines of the Roberts court like the MQD and gun “history and tradition” should
Literally, by its terms, the only function MQD can have is "this statute does not actually say what, by its terms, it plainly says"
June 23, 2026 at 4:52 AM
Literally, by its terms, the only function MQD can have is "this statute does not actually say what, by its terms, it plainly says"
Funny how the court never applies MQD to itself.
December 8, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Funny how the court never applies MQD to itself.
No no I mean they're gonna wheel the MQD out when a Democrat is president
June 29, 2026 at 9:22 PM
No no I mean they're gonna wheel the MQD out when a Democrat is president
you know who else doesn't think we need the fucking MQD to sort this one out?
February 20, 2026 at 3:55 PM
you know who else doesn't think we need the fucking MQD to sort this one out?
One would think they’d find some value in being able to say “Look, we finally applied the MQD to a Republican president!”
September 26, 2025 at 12:17 AM
One would think they’d find some value in being able to say “Look, we finally applied the MQD to a Republican president!”
I look forward to his adherence to MQD if a Dem wins the presidency (assuming democracy don’t completely fall apart).
September 15, 2026 at 12:47 AM
I look forward to his adherence to MQD if a Dem wins the presidency (assuming democracy don’t completely fall apart).
Going to law school and being asked how i'd respond to the MQD was hell. Should've just said it was bullshit the court uses when it wants to dictate policy.
June 23, 2026 at 1:55 AM
Going to law school and being asked how i'd respond to the MQD was hell. Should've just said it was bullshit the court uses when it wants to dictate policy.
Barrett can’t explain why legislative history is a *less* reliable indicator of congressional intent than judge-made doctrines like MQD, which allow courts to smuggle in their policy preferences under the guise of making “inferences” about what Congress intended. She just repeats the old platitudes.
June 16, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Barrett can’t explain why legislative history is a *less* reliable indicator of congressional intent than judge-made doctrines like MQD, which allow courts to smuggle in their policy preferences under the guise of making “inferences” about what Congress intended. She just repeats the old platitudes.
Indeed, the irony is Plaintiff should win on ultra vires alone. Like, you don't even need the no delegation or MQD to kill these tariffs.
![52. Basic principles of statutory construction establish that the IEEPA does
not authorize the president to impose tariffs on Americans. This conclusion is
reinforced by the major questions doctrine, which presumes that Congress “speak[s]
clearly” if it authorizes the Executive Branch to make “decisions of vast ‘economic
and political significance.’” UARG, 573 U.S. at 324. Accord West Virginia v. EPA,
597 U.S. 697, 716 (2022).
53. It is just such a decision when a president imposes heavy across-theboard tariffs on all imports from our country’s three largest trading partners. These
tariffs represent a tax increase of hundreds of billions of dollars each year: In 2024,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bfdiyietterineb3cvu3ddco/bafkreidbf2a5clqvmruqsuluybvll4lnxgrxrikrsf2whzwb4xs5rqnbum)
April 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Indeed, the irony is Plaintiff should win on ultra vires alone. Like, you don't even need the no delegation or MQD to kill these tariffs.