Examine how the Major Questions Doctrine, as applied in recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, constrains executive authority in economic policymaking. What lessons does this hold for India's delegated legislation framework?

Q. Examine how the Major Questions Doctrine, as applied in recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, constrains executive authority in economic policymaking. What lessons does this hold for India's delegated legislation framework? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) requires clear legislative authorisation before the executive decides matters of vast economic significance. Its application in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (20 February 2026) shows judicial review reining in executive economic policymaking — a caution India's delegated legislation framework should absorb.

How the doctrine constrains executive authority - Clear-authorisation test: by 6-3, Roberts CJ held that IEEPA's power to "regulate importation" does not include tariffs, since taxation is an Article I congressional power [1]. - Delegation must be express: the executive has no inherent peacetime tariff power; it must flow from a clear congressional delegation [2]. - Channelling effect: IEEPA tariffs were terminated and policy pushed back to bounded statutes — Sections 122, 232 and 301 — which carry time limits and procedural conditions [2]. - Fiscal weight: with collections running into billions of dollars, the ruling shows judicial checks on delegated power can have macroeconomic consequences [1].

Limits of the constraint - The Court barred a route, not the policy: Congress may expressly re-delegate tariff authority, and legislation to that end is already under discussion [2]. - Global uncertainty persists — the WTO projected world merchandise trade volume to fall 0.2% in 2025, with North American exports down 12.6% [3] — while partners respond through retaliation, subsidies or new trade agreements, keeping exporters like India exposed [4].

Lessons for India - Parent Acts under Articles 245–246 must lay down policy and an intelligible principle; rules must never exceed the Act's scope or operate retrospectively [5]. - Tighten the laying procedure — rules framed within six months and laid within 15 days of gazette publication [5]. - Strengthen the Committees on Subordinate Legislation in both Houses for pre-scrutiny of fiscally significant rules [6], especially duty and cess notifications, given Article 265.

Judicial insistence on express delegation ultimately strengthens, rather than weakens, executive credibility. India should pair this with proactive parliamentary scrutiny, so that rule-making remains efficient yet anchored in legislative will — reinforcing separation of powers as a working constitutional discipline.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (U.S. Supreme Court, 20 Feb 2026) — 6-3 ruling, Roberts CJ; tariffs as Article I congressional taxing power; scale of collections at stake 2. CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11398, "Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs Imposed Under IEEPA" (Congress.gov) — no inherent executive tariff power; fallback to Sections 122/232/301; option of amending IEEPA 3. WTO, "Trade tensions and uncertainty" trade forecast, 16 April 2025 — world merchandise trade volume −0.2% in 2025; North American exports −12.6% 4. IMF Working Paper 2025/147, "Trade Partners' Responses to US Tariffs" (July 2025) — partner responses: retaliation, subsidies, new trade agreements 5. PRS Legislative Research, "Parliamentary Scrutiny of Executive Rule Making" — rules not to exceed the Act, six-month framing norm, laying within 15 days 6. Lok Sabha, Committee on Subordinate Legislation (abstract) — mandate to examine whether delegated powers are properly exercised within the conferment