Uncategorized - Leeegal

The nondelegation doctrine is a principle that limits how much power Congress can hand off to other branches of government or administrative agencies. It's all about making sure that the people we elect to make the laws are the ones actually making them, and not just passing the buck. This idea pops up a lot when we talk about how much authority agencies like the EPA or the FDA have. It’s a pretty complex topic that touches on separation of powers and how much control we want the government to have. Key Takeaways The nondelegation doctrine stems from the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers, aiming to prevent Congress from improperly transferring its legislative authority. Courts have developed standards, like the 'intelligible principle,' to determine if a delegation of power is permissible, though these standards can be difficult to apply consistently. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as those involving the National Industrial Recovery Act, have shaped the understanding and application of the nondelegation doctrine. The doctrine impacts administrative agencies by defining the limits of their rulemaking and adjudicatory powers, influencing the scope of the modern regulatory state. Ongoing debates continue regarding the doctrine's future, its enforcement challenges, and its role in balancing effective governance with constitutional principles. Historical Origins of the Nondelegation Doctrine The idea that one branch of government shouldn't just hand over its core responsibilities to another, or to some outside entity, isn't exactly new. It's deeply woven into the fabric of how we've thought about government structure for a long time. Early Constitutional Frameworks When the United States was founded, the framers were really focused on preventing the kind of concentrated power they'd seen in monarchies. They looked at Enlightenment thinkers and developed a system where powers were divided. The Constitution itself lays out distinct roles for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This separation wasn't just about efficiency; it was about safeguarding liberty. The nondelegation doctrine, though not explicitly named as such in the Constitution, grew out of this foundational principle of separating powers. It's about making sure each branch stays within its lane. Intellectual Roots in Separation of Powers Thinkers like Montesquieu really influenced the American founders. His idea was that if you combine legislative and executive powers, you get tyranny. If you combine judicial and legislative powers, you get arbitrary control over life and liberty. The whole point was to create checks and balances. So, when Congress, for example, makes a law, it's supposed to be the one doing the lawmaking. It can't just say to an executive agency, "Here, you figure out what the law should be." This doctrine is a direct descendant of that separationist thinking. It's a way to keep the branches distinct and accountable. Key Precedents in Early American Law While the doctrine has evolved, its roots can be traced back to early legal discussions and court cases. Even in the early days, courts were grappling with how much authority Congress could pass on. Early cases often dealt with situations where Congress seemed to be giving too much discretion to the President or other officials. These early interpretations helped shape the understanding that legislative power, once granted by the people, should be exercised by the people's elected representatives. It's a principle that has been tested and refined over centuries, forming the basis for modern legal challenges to government action. Principles Underlying the Nondelegation Doctrine The nondelegation doctrine isn't just some dusty legal concept; it's actually pretty central to how our government is supposed to work. At its heart, it's all about making sure power doesn't get too concentrated in one place, which is a big deal when you think about it. Separation of Legislative and Executive Functions This is probably the most talked-about principle. The idea is that the folks who make the laws (Congress, in the federal system) shouldn't be the same ones who carry them out (the President and the executive branch). It’s like having a referee and a player be the same person – it just doesn’t work well. When Congress writes a law, it's supposed to set the policy. Then, the executive branch is supposed to implement that policy. If Congress starts handing over its law-making power to agencies, it blurs that line. This separation is a cornerstone of our constitutional structure, designed to prevent tyranny by dividing governmental authority. It’s a key part of the separation of powers framework that limits government overreach. Protection Against Arbitrary Power When Congress delegates too much authority, especially without clear guidelines, it can lead to unpredictable and unfair outcomes. Think about it: if an agency can make up the rules as it goes along, how are people supposed to know what's expected of them? The nondelegation doctrine acts as a safeguard against this kind of arbitrary decision-making. It pushes for clear standards so that individuals and businesses can understand their legal obligations. This predictability is vital for a functioning society. Preserving Democratic Accountability This principle is all about who we can hold responsible. Elected officials in Congress are accountable to the voters. If they pass a law that people don't like, voters can vote them out. But if Congress delegates a lot of its power to unelected agency officials, who are voters supposed to hold accountable? It becomes much harder to pinpoint responsibility. The doctrine aims to keep law-making power in the hands of those who are directly answerable to the people, thereby maintaining a more robust form of democratic governance. Judicial Interpretation of the Nondelegation Doctrine Textualism and Originalism in Doctrine Analysis When courts look at the nondelegation doctrine, they often start by examining the actual words of the Constitution. This approach, known as textualism, focuses on what the text plainly says about the separation of powers. Another common method is originalism, which tries to understand what the words meant to people when the Constitution was written. Both of these interpretive frameworks aim to ground the doctrine in the foundational principles of American governance. It's about figuring out if a specific delegation of power truly goes against what the framers intended. The core idea is to prevent Congress from simply handing off its core legislative responsibilities to someone else, whether that's an executive agency or another body. This isn't just about abstract legal theory; it's about maintaining a system where power is clearly defined and accountable. Role of Judicial Review Judicial review is the mechanism by which courts can examine laws and actions to see if they align with the Constitution. In the context of the nondelegation doctrine, this means courts can strike down laws that they find improperly delegate legislative power. This power of review is a key check on the other branches of government. Without it, Congress could potentially create laws that are so vague or broad that they effectively allow unelected officials to make policy decisions, undermining the democratic process. The Supreme Court, in particular, plays a significant role in shaping how the nondelegation doctrine is understood and applied through its decisions. This process helps to maintain constitutional supremacy. Significance of Precedent in Nondelegation Cases Like in many areas of law, past court decisions, or precedent, carry a lot of weight when courts interpret the nondelegation doctrine. Judges look to how previous courts have handled similar delegation issues. This reliance on precedent helps create predictability and stability in the law. However, it also means that interpretations can evolve slowly, and sometimes, a new case might challenge existing understandings. The history of nondelegation cases shows a back-and-forth, with courts sometimes striking down delegations and other times upholding them, often depending on the specific facts and the prevailing judicial philosophy at the time. This makes understanding the historical context of these rulings quite important. Standards for Assessing Legislative Delegation When Congress or a state legislature gives power to another body, like an administrative agency, courts have to decide if that hand-off crosses a constitutional line. The nondelegation doctrine is the main rule here, meant to keep lawmaking in the hands of elected lawmakers. Courts ask: did the legislature give too much power away, or did it set clear guidelines? The Intelligible Principle Standard The big test in American law is the "intelligible principle" standard. Legislatures must lay out a clear standard--an intelligible principle--when giving authority to another entity. That way, agencies can't just make up their own rules without any direction. If Congress tells an agency to "regulate air quality as needed," that's often enough to pass the test, so long as the law provides some direction about what "as needed" actually means in context. Over time, courts have accepted pretty broad standards, but they stick to the principle that some kind of guidance must always be present. Without an intelligible principle, an agency's actions could be struck down as unconstitutional. The courts look at: The text of the law and its instructions Historical practice in similar cases Whether the agency is filling in details vs. making fundamentally new policy Tiered Scrutiny in Delegation Challenges Sometimes, not all delegations get the same amount of court scrutiny. The courts may apply something like tiered scrutiny—though the wording varies from one case to another: If the topic is one where fundamental rights or vital economic interests are at stake, judges may look more closely at how power was delegated. If it’s simply about filling in technical details or enforcing existing policy, the courts give more leeway. Where agencies get substantial freedom to decide important policy questions, close judicial attention usually follows. Scrutiny Level Examples of Delegation Likelihood to Survive High Broad policy discretion Low Medium Significant economic impact Medium Low Technical/ministerial tasks High Limits Recognized by Courts Even with broad standards, courts have recognized some limits. These limits are designed to protect against the abuse of delegated power: Clear standards must exist: guidance is necessary for agencies, not just free rein. Agencies can’t make new criminal laws—those have to come from the legislature itself. Major questions with big consequences (like huge shifts in the economy) are more likely to require direct legislative input. Judicial review helps keep the balance: if Congress crosses the line and gives away too much authority, courts can step in and declare the delegation invalid. Courts also weigh whether an issue might be better suited for a political, rather than a judicial, solution, as highlighted in the political question doctrine. The end result: it's not just about the words of the law, but whether power is being handed over in a way that's still accountable, structured, and constitutional. Exceptions and Permissible Delegations The nondelegation doctrine is not absolute—Congress and state legislatures can give authority to other entities in certain ways. Over time, courts have recognized practical boundaries. They allow some agency flexibility and distinguish between true lawmaking and routine administration. Understanding when delegation is acceptable helps make sense of modern government. Scope of Agency Discretion Courts look at how much freedom an agency has to make decisions when reviewing a delegation. Generally, agencies can act within a framework set by the legislature, as long as the core choices still belong to lawmakers. Here are some things that typically shape acceptable agency discretion: Agencies can fill in details or procedures, not create new law. Legislatures must give clear guidance and meaningful limits for agency action. The bigger the policy question, the less likely courts are to allow broad agency discretion. If the law sketches the outline and agencies color between the lines, courts are more comfortable upholding the delegation. Distinguishing Legislative and Administrative Powers The line between lawmaking and administering the law is not always bright. Courts try to decide whether an action is really creating policy (which is legislative) or just implementing existing choices (which is administrative). Here’s what usually tips the balance: Specificity of legislative instructions Whether the agency is just applying facts to a legal standard The context—like technical details or emerging issues needing expertise Sometimes courts allow agencies to make judgments about facts or technical standards, but not to set major policy directions. Recognized Exceptions in Statutory Schemes Through experience, some exceptions have become pretty routine in American law. Legislative delegations are usually okay when: The area is too technical or complex for detailed statutes Agency action is needed for quick responses, such as emergencies The power concerns internal government management Here’s a quick look in table form: Delegation Type Likely Permitted? Rulemaking with clear statutory goals Yes Emergency regulatory powers Usually Core policy-setting No, generally not Most statutes that survive challenge give agencies an intelligible principle for guidance. Routine delegations aren’t just allowed—they’re part of how the government tackles real-world problems that statutes alone can’t cover. Landmark Cases Shaping the Nondelegation Doctrine Several Supreme Court decisions have shaped modern thinking about the nondelegation doctrine—each case clarifies the limits of how far Congress can hand over its legislative powers. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan This 1935 case is one of the clearest examples of the Supreme Court enforcing the nondelegation doctrine strictly. The Court evaluated a section of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which let the President prohibit the shipment of certain petroleum products. The law failed to outline clear standards or limits, leaving the President with almost total discretion over enforcement. The Court struck down the provision, saying Congress must clearly state how much power it is transferring and must offer guidance. Main Points from Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan: Congress can't leave huge decisions up to the President without clear instructions. The law was too vague to count as a legitimate delegation. This decision showed that the Court would stop laws that give away legislative power too loosely. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States Only a few months later, the Court took up another challenge to the same federal law. Again, the issue was whether Congress gave too much power to the Executive. The National Recovery Administration had sweeping power to write codes of fair competition—so broad that it basically acted as a national lawmaker. The Court said this was unacceptable: agencies cannot write law unless Congress provides clear, understandable rules. List of Effects from the Schechter Decision: Agencies lost their ability to set broad standards without narrow guidelines. Congress got a warning shot—it had to define policies, not let agencies guess Congressional intent. The "intelligible principle" test became front and center for later cases. Recent Developments in Supreme Court Jurisprudence In the decades after the New Deal, the Court rarely struck down laws for violating the nondelegation doctrine. Lately, however, some justices have questioned whether agency power has gone too far. In 2019, Gundy v. United States showed a sharp split on the Court over how much detail Congress must give when it delegates tasks, with some justices pushing for tougher scrutiny. Several current justices have signaled they might consider stricter rules for Congressional delegation in the near future. The topic now pops up often in legal debates about administrative law and the power of federal agencies. Case Year Outcome Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 1935 Struck down vague delegation A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. 1935 Invalidated sweeping agency discretion Gundy v. United States 2019 Upheld delegation, but exposed deep split The Supreme Court's approach to nondelegation has shifted with time: sometimes hands-off, sometimes more cautious about giving away legislative power. Where the line should be drawn is still an open question—and the debate over proper boundaries doesn't seem likely to fade any time soon. Implications for Administrative Agencies Delegation of Rulemaking Authority When Congress passes a law, it often can't get into all the nitty-gritty details itself. So, it hands over some of that power to administrative agencies. Think of agencies like the EPA or the FDA. They get the job of figuring out the specifics of how a law will actually work. This means they get to write rules, and these rules have the force of law. The nondelegation doctrine plays a big role here. Courts look to see if Congress gave the agency enough direction. Did they provide an "intelligible principle"? If not, the delegation might be too broad, and the agency's rules could be challenged. It's a constant balancing act between letting agencies do their jobs efficiently and making sure they aren't just making up laws on their own. Limits on Agency Adjudication Besides making rules, agencies also act like courts sometimes. They hold hearings and make decisions about specific cases. This is called adjudication. The nondelegation doctrine also touches on this. While agencies can certainly adjudicate matters related to the laws they administer, there are limits. The concern is that agencies shouldn't be stepping too much into the judicial branch's territory. Courts have to be careful not to let agencies become mini-legislatures and mini-judiciaries all rolled into one. This is where the separation of powers idea really comes into play. Agencies need to follow fair procedures, kind of like a court would, to make sure things are done right. Enforcement and Compliance Considerations Ultimately, all these rules and decisions by agencies need to be enforced. The nondelegation doctrine indirectly affects this. If an agency's authority to make rules or adjudicate cases is found to be unconstitutional because it was improperly delegated, then its enforcement actions based on those rules or decisions can be thrown out. This can create a lot of uncertainty. Businesses and individuals need to know what the rules are and that those rules are valid. When there's a question about an agency's power, it makes compliance harder and can lead to legal battles. It's a reminder that the foundation of an agency's power rests on how well Congress delegated that authority in the first place. Here's a quick look at how delegation can impact agency actions: Rulemaking: Agencies create regulations to implement statutes. Adjudication: Agencies resolve disputes related to their regulations. Enforcement: Agencies take action to ensure compliance with rules and laws. The doctrine isn't just an abstract legal concept; it has real-world consequences for how government agencies operate and how laws are applied to everyday life. When Congress delegates power, it must do so with enough clarity to guide the agency and satisfy constitutional requirements. The Nondelegation Doctrine in Modern Governance The nondelegation doctrine has evolved over time to meet the demands of contemporary government. In modern regulatory practice, the doctrine shapes how legislative bodies assign authority to administrative agencies, influencing the boundaries of agency power and the safeguards against arbitrary decision-making. Lawmakers and courts balance flexibility with the need for democratic oversight, which has led to ongoing debates about how much power Congress or state legislatures should be able to hand over to unelected regulators. Evolving Standards in Regulatory Practice Today, administrative agencies take on a huge role in federal and state governance, writing rules and resolving disputes that affect millions. The nondelegation doctrine hasn't blocked such agencies, but it still acts as a check when delegations become too broad. Modern standards require Congress to lay down an intelligible principle—that is, a basic standard to guide agency action. There's constant discussion over what counts as a clear enough principle. Agencies must follow enabling statutes and restrain their authority within those bounds. Courts frequently review whether Congress provided sufficient directions for agency decision-making. Legislatures sometimes revise laws to clarify or limit agency discretion after judicial intervention. The current approach to legislative delegation is shaped by both the practical needs of agencies and persistent doubts about unchecked bureaucratic power. Legislative Responses to Judicial Constraints When courts signal discomfort with open-ended delegations, lawmakers have to react. Sometimes, statutes are amended to provide more specific criteria for agency action. Legislatures might add more details to definitions or set clearer goals to avoid judicial invalidation. Year Number of Major Legislative Amendments After Court Review 2018 3 2019 7 2020 4 2021 2 2022 5 This pattern shows how judicial review can prompt more careful drafting, even if broad delegations still occur fairly often. Ongoing Debates in Legal Scholarship Scholars continue to debate issues like: Whether administrative rulemaking undermines democratic accountability. If modern governance simply requires broader delegations than the Constitution envisions. The best ways to measure what an intelligible principle actually looks like. Some point to doctrines like the state action doctrine to highlight how blurred lines between private and government action can make these debates even more complex. Others question whether stricter enforcement of nondelegation would cripple necessary regulatory functions. The story of the nondelegation doctrine in modern times is one of constant adjustment—balancing agency expertise and flexibility against basic requirements for oversight, transparency, and the rule of law. Challenges in Enforcing the Nondelegation Doctrine Enforcing the nondelegation doctrine presents a series of complicated hurdles for courts, lawmakers, and ordinary people. The doctrine, meant to keep legislative powers from being handed off too freely to other branches of government, faces some stubborn roadblocks in practice. Below are some of the biggest challenges in making this constitutional principle actually work: Standing and Jurisdictional Barriers Not just anyone can take a nondelegation claim to court; there’s a tight gatekeeping process. Plaintiffs have to show a clear personal injury caused by an overbroad delegation. Without proper standing, courts won’t touch the case. Sometimes, even when someone is clearly affected by a dubious delegation, the technical requirements for jurisdiction aren’t met. This means certain wrongs can go unchecked simply because the right plaintiff can’t be found. The design of the judicial system adds another layer: both federal and state courts must have authority (subject-matter and personal) over the parties and the issues—something that’s not always straightforward in constitutional delegation disputes. Political Questions and Judicial Reluctance Courts often shy away from stepping into disputes that are better suited for Congress or the executive branch. The doctrine of political questions keeps judges from making what are, at heart, policy choices. Nondelegation cases sometimes get dismissed on the grounds that the issue is too political—not properly a matter for judicial resolution. Judges worry about overreaching or being seen as meddling in the legislative process, so many nondelegation arguments get brushed aside without a real hearing. Effective Remedies and Enforcement Mechanisms Even when a violation is found, courts have limited remedies. Striking down a law can leave gaps that Congress hasn’t filled. Courts can’t always order a quick fix. Sometimes, agencies that rely on legislative delegations already have rules in place, and undoing these creates practical confusion. There’s also not much teeth to ongoing oversight after a decision—once the remedy is ordered, continuous compliance is tricky to ensure. Challenge Consequence Difficulty showing standing Fewer cases heard Political question doctrine Issues unresolved Limited judicial remedies Legal uncertainty The nondelegation doctrine sounds simple—don’t let Congress pass off too much of its job—but in real courts, the lines are blurry, the hurdles are high, and resolution is rarely quick or clean. Comparative Perspectives on Legislative Delegation Approaches in Other Constitutional Democracies When we look beyond our own borders, it's interesting to see how other countries handle the idea of legislatures handing over some of their law-making power to agencies. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation, and different systems have found their own ways to balance the need for specialized, efficient regulation with the core principle that elected representatives should be the ones making the big policy decisions. Many countries, especially those with parliamentary systems, have robust administrative law frameworks that allow for significant delegation. However, they often have strong oversight mechanisms in place, like parliamentary committees or specialized administrative courts, to keep an eye on how these delegated powers are used. The key seems to be maintaining a clear line of accountability, even when the day-to-day details are handled by experts within government bodies. It's a constant negotiation between practical governance and democratic control. International Norms on Separation of Powers While the strict separation of powers as envisioned in some early American thought isn't universally applied in the same way, the underlying principle of dividing governmental functions to prevent tyranny is pretty widespread. Most democratic nations have some form of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, though the lines can be blurrier than in the U.S. The way legislative delegation fits into this picture varies. Some systems might see more inherent overlap between the branches, allowing for different kinds of delegation. Others might have stricter boundaries. What's common is the concern that unchecked delegation could undermine the legislature's role or lead to an overreach of executive or administrative power. It's about finding a balance that respects the separation of powers while allowing for effective government. The goal is to ensure that power isn't concentrated in too few hands, no matter the specific structure. Lessons from Foreign Systems Studying how other countries manage legislative delegation can offer some valuable insights. For instance, some European systems have well-developed systems of administrative courts that specifically review agency actions, including the legality of delegated powers. This specialized review can provide a more focused and efficient way to challenge agency overreach compared to relying solely on generalist courts. Another approach seen elsewhere is the use of detailed legislative frameworks that set very specific limits on what agencies can do, even when given broad authority. This proactive approach by legislatures can help prevent problems before they arise. We can also observe different models for parliamentary oversight, where committees play a more active role in scrutinizing delegated legislation. These foreign approaches highlight different ways to achieve the same goals: ensuring accountability, maintaining legislative supremacy, and protecting individual rights in a complex regulatory environment. It shows that there isn't just one way to get it right, and learning from others can help refine our own practices. For example, the way the UK Parliament scrutinizes secondary legislation provides a model for oversight that could be adapted. Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is a key area where different countries have developed unique mechanisms. The Future of the Nondelegation Doctrine Looking ahead, the nondelegation doctrine is on many legal minds as courts, lawmakers, and administrative agencies reconsider how far legislative powers can be shared. What happens next might shape how government works, how agencies regulate, and how much flexibility Congress has when it needs help from federal agencies to address complex issues. Potential for Expanded Judicial Enforcement Recent cases suggest the Supreme Court might be moving toward stricter enforcement of the nondelegation doctrine. If this happens, Congress and agencies could face tighter rules on how they write and implement laws. Here are some possible outcomes from more aggressive judicial policing: Greater demand for Congress to write more detailed statutes. More laws struck down for giving agencies too much discretion. A larger role for the courts in reviewing agency decisions. If courts clamp down further on legislative delegation, the speed at which agencies respond to new challenges could fall, and the lines between government branches would be redrawn. Legislative Reform Proposals Lawmakers have floated several ideas to address concerns about overbroad delegations. Some proposals include: Adding clearer limits to agency power within statutes. Creating a mandatory review process for agency rules. Requiring agencies to get legislative approval for major decisions. These changes could help balance the need for flexible and adaptive governance with the principle that Congress, not agencies, should make the big policy choices. Sharing authority is now a regular feature of lawmaking, but some members of Congress want to revisit how much leeway they give agencies. Impact on Regulatory State Functioning The nondelegation doctrine’s evolution could change how agencies operate in daily practice. Here’s what might be at stake: Issue Possible Impact if Doctrine is Strictly Enforced Rulemaking Speed Slower, as agencies wait for precise statutory guidance Compliance Uncertainty Lower, but only if laws are written clearly Congressional Workload Higher, as Congress needs to craft detailed instructions Responsiveness to Crises Lower, especially in fast-changing policy areas Whether the doctrine is used more aggressively or stays in the background, its future will shape the boundaries between legislative action and agency expertise. For now, legal scholars and courts are watching to see if renewed interest in limiting delegation brings big changes, or just small adjustments, to how the government adapts to modern policy challenges. ConclusionThe nondelegation doctrine is one of those legal ideas that keeps popping up whenever people talk about how much power government agencies should really have. It’s not always front and center, but it shapes how laws get made and who gets to make the big decisions. Courts have wrestled with where to draw the line between letting agencies fill in the details and making sure Congress doesn’t hand off its job entirely. In practice, the doctrine sets some boundaries, but it’s also flexible enough that agencies still play a big role in government. At the end of the day, the nondelegation doctrine is about keeping government accountable and making sure that the people who write the laws are the ones who answer to voters. It’s a balancing act, and it’s probably not going away anytime soon. Frequently Asked Questions What is the nondelegation doctrine?The nondelegation doctrine is a rule that says Congress cannot give its lawmaking powers to other branches, like the President or government agencies. This keeps the power to make laws with the people’s elected representatives. Why is the nondelegation doctrine important?It helps make sure that the government follows the rules of the Constitution. By keeping lawmaking in Congress, it stops too much power from being given to one person or group and protects our rights. How does the nondelegation doctrine protect against unfair government actions?The doctrine makes sure that only Congress can make big decisions about laws. This means government agencies must follow clear rules, so they can’t make up rules as they go along or act unfairly. Are there any exceptions to the nondelegation doctrine?Yes, Congress can let agencies make rules as long as it gives them clear instructions, called an "intelligible principle." This means agencies can fill in the details but can’t make major decisions on their own. What is the 'intelligible principle' standard?The 'intelligible principle' standard means Congress must give agencies clear guidelines when it lets them make rules. Agencies can then make rules that fit those guidelines, but they can’t go beyond them. How do courts check if Congress has given away too much power?Courts look at the laws and see if Congress gave clear instructions to the agency. If the rules are too vague or broad, courts might say the law is unconstitutional because it gives away too much power. Can the nondelegation doctrine affect how agencies make rules?Yes, agencies must follow the instructions Congress gives them. If they go beyond these limits, courts can stop them from enforcing those rules. Has the Supreme Court changed how it uses the nondelegation doctrine?The Supreme Court has not used the doctrine to strike down many laws in recent years, but some justices want to use it more. This means the doctrine could become more important in the future.