评论
打印
More broadly, the court was asked to address whether Congress must “speak with particular clarity when it authorizes executive agencies to address major political and economic questions.”
在更广泛的层面上，最高法院被要求回答国会是否必须“在授权行政机构处理重大政治和经济问题时，必须特别明确发言”。
That theory is often referred to as the “major questions doctrine,” and it played a key role in Thursday’s decision.
这一观点通常被称为“重大问题原则”，在周四的裁决中发挥了关键作用。
Chief Justice Roberts, employing the phrase for the first time in a majority opinion, said it applied in cases of unusual significance and was meant to address “a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”
首席大法官罗伯茨在多数派意见书中首次使用了这一说法，他说，这一说法适用于具有不同寻常意义的案件，旨在解决“一个特殊的、反复出现的问题: 这些机构所拥有的重要权力超出了人们可以合理理解的国会可以授予的范围。
The provision of the Clean Air Act the Biden administration pointed to was too oblique, and so ran afoul of the major questions doctrine, the chief justice wrote.
首席大法官写道，拜登政府指出的《清洁空气法案》的条款过于拐弯抹角，因此与重大问题原则相抵触。
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion advanced a central goal of the conservative legal movement, that of curtailing the power of the administrative state.
首席大法官罗伯茨的意见推动了保守派法律运动的一个核心目标，即限制这个国家的行政权力。
But it did so in a characteristically measured way.
但是是以一种典型的、慎重的的方式实现这一目标的。
In a full-throated 19-page concurring opinion, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., elaborated on what the chief justice had written.
大法官尼尔·戈尔萨奇和大法官小塞缪尔·阿利托在一份长达19页的同意意见书中，详细阐述了这位首席大法官所写的内容。
“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
“当国会似乎在解决问题上行动迟缓时，行政部门的那些人可能会寻求自己动手解决问题，这可能是很自然的，”大法官戈尔萨奇写道。
“But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
“但宪法没有授权机构使用书面和电话规定来代替人民代表通过的法律。”
In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the statute at issue in the case had given the agency ample authority.
大法官卡根提出异议，写道，该案中有争议的法规赋予了该机构足够的权力。
“The Clean Air Act was major legislation, designed to deal with a major public policy issue,” she wrote, adding: “Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues — even significant ones — as and when they arise.”
“《清洁空气法案》是一项重大立法，旨在处理一个重大的公共政策问题，”她写道，并补充道：“国会在起草法规时明白国会不知道和不能知道的事情；因此，国会赋予一个专门机构在问题出现时解决这些问题的权力，即使是重要的问题。”
She added that the agency was best suited to take on climate change.
她补充说，该机构最适合应对气候变化。
“This is not the attorney general regulating medical care, or even the C.D.C. regulating landlord-tenant relations,” she wrote.
她写道，“这不是司法部长在监管医疗，甚至也不是疾控中心在监管房东和房客之间的关系。”
“It is E.P.A. (that’s the Environmental Protection Agency, in case the majority forgot) acting to address the greatest environmental challenge of our time.”
“是环保局(环境保护局，以防多数派忘记了)要采取行动，应对我们这个时代最大的环境挑战。”
