Establishing Congressional legislation is what will permanently end the Deep State, not Trump's executive orders
By Josiah Ranen
One could argue that the origins of the Deep state that stymied much of President Trump's policy goals in his first term began with the court ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984. Here, it was established by the Supreme Court that the court should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions. Chevron treated Congressional silence or ambiguity in a statute as an implicit delegation of authority to the agency entrusted to implement the statute.
As Trump packed the courts with conservative picks in his first term, these conservative justices began crafting a new legal doctrine in many different cases to address the various suits being brought against government agencies' regulatory actions. In effect, Chevon was overturned.
This eventually resulted in the major questions doctrine, a judicially-created rule requiring “clear congressional authorization” that any cabinet secretary or agency executive might take actions on issues of vast political or economic significance. As the Biden administration took office, this doctrine played a starring role in Supreme Court decisions that blocked President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and limited the EPA’s power to fight climate change. The Major Questions Doctrine hobbled the powers of the Deep State by preventing agency heads from enacting policy without explicit congressional authorization.
At first, the Major Question doctrine was controversial, and liberal justices reserved their objections. But, once celebrated by conservatives as a tool to rein in federal overreach, it is now being used to challenge one of their own — former President Donald Trump, and it could unravel much of Trump’s very attempt to purge the deep state just months into his return to power. And surprisingly, both liberal and conservative justices are coming to a consensus on the Major Questions doctrine that just might establish it as settled legal doctrine.
Conservatives vs. Trump?
In an ironic twist, one of the most prominent legal challenges invoking the doctrine was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative group. Their target? Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which they argue lack the clear legal basis required under the doctrine.
They’re not alone. Various liberal groups are making legal arguments grounded in the major questions doctrine are multiplying across federal courts — with lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempts to:
-
Freeze federal funding without congressional approval
-
Strip birthright citizenship from children of undocumented immigrants
-
Interfere in state-run elections
-
Slash government agencies via the new “Department of Government Efficiency”
Even a coalition of 14 states cited the doctrine in a challenge to unprecedented moves by Elon Musk and DOGE to dismantle federal functions — declaring there’s zero evidence Congress authorized anything of the sort.
Hoisted by Their Own Doctrine?
This legal boomerang reflects a striking role reversal. Liberals once criticized the major questions doctrine as a judicial invention, not found in the Constitution or any statute. Justice Elena Kagan famously called it a “heavyweight thumb on the scale” used to strike down Biden-era policies.
Now the same doctrine is being deployed to curb Trump’s presidential overreach — potentially forcing his administration to walk back some of its most dramatic moves.
And the irony runs deep. Conservatives on the Court once framed the doctrine as a check on unchecked executive power. If they’re consistent, they’ll apply the same logic to Trump. If not, the doctrine risks looking like a partisan weapon — used only when convenient.
Will the Court Blink?
That’s the big question. Will the conservative justices stick to principles that limit the power of government or protect a president who claims to be a conservative? If they choose consistency over loyalty, they could strike a blow for institutional integrity. After all, the doctrine doesn’t say which president must get congressional signoff — only that every president must.
In doing so, the Supreme Court could reinforce the idea that major policy decisions belong in Congress, not behind the closed doors of the executive branch. The attempts to purge the Deep State are well and good but if Trump or Musk intend to keep taking actions to purge the officers of the Deep State, they will need to do so based on a prior authorization of Congress. In a moment of deep political polarization and legal instability, that kind of judicial restraint might be one of the few things left to hope for, no matter which party is in power. Establishing Congressional legislation is what will permanently end the Deep State, not Trump's executive orders which can be swept under the rug the moment he leaves office.
Comments