By Trendsetter Tribune 
WASHINGTON — While much of the nation’s attention remains fixed on the fallout from President Trump’s recent legislative battles, legal scholars are sounding the alarm over what they describe as a “judicial fortress” being built by Justice Neil Gorsuch. On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, analysts pointed to Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in the landmark “Learning Resources v. Trump” tariff case as the clearest blueprint yet for a Supreme Court that is prepared to dismantle the executive power of any future Democratic president.
By refining the Major Questions Doctrine and reviving the Nondelegation Doctrine, Gorsuch is effectively laying a minefield that would make it nearly impossible for a future administration to enact climate, labor, or healthcare reforms through federal agencies.
The Gorsuch Strategy: “Major Questions” as a Shield
The centerpiece of Gorsuch’s strategy is the “Major Questions Doctrine”—a legal theory that prevents federal agencies from making significant policy changes unless they have “clear and explicit” authorization from Congress.
- The Trap: In the 2026 tariff ruling, Gorsuch joined the majority to strike down Trump’s emergency powers, but his separate opinion went much further. He argued that the court must be the “final arbiter” of what constitutes a “major” policy change.
- The Future Impact: Critics argue this is a “win-win” for Gorsuch’s long-term goals. While it checked Trump’s immediate power, it set a precedent that a future Democratic president could not use existing laws (like the Clean Air Act or the Affordable Care Act) to address modern crises like climate change or rising drug costs without a new, impossible-to-pass law from a divided Congress.
Reviving the “Nondelegation” Ghost
Beyond the tariff case, Gorsuch has been the primary voice calling for the return of the Nondelegation Doctrine, which has been largely dormant since the 1930s.
| Gorsuch’s Core Argument | The Practical Consequence |
| “Legislative Abdication” | Congress cannot give “broad discretion” to agencies (like the EPA or FDA) to write their own rules. |
| “Intelligible Principle” | Gorsuch wants to strike down laws that don’t provide a “strictly defined” path for agency action. |
| “Shattering Independence” | Gorsuch has expressed skepticism toward independent agencies (FTC, NLRB), arguing they should be under more direct presidential control—but only if the “major questions” check is firmly in place. |
The “Unlikely Ally” Paradox
The irony of Gorsuch’s recent rulings is that they have occasionally made him an “unlikely ally” to Democrats in the short term. By voting to strike down Trump’s tariffs and siding with tribal rights, Gorsuch has appeared at times to be a “moderate” check on executive overreach.
However, progressive legal analysts like Mark Joseph Stern argue this is a “mirage.”
“Gorsuch isn’t trying to save the Democrats; he’s trying to save the Court’s ability to kill the Administrative State. He is perfectly happy to clip Trump’s wings today if it gives him the scissors to cut off a Democratic president’s hands tomorrow.”
The “Post-Trump” Defensive Line
With the 2026 midterms approaching and Democrats hoping to regain a foothold in Congress, the “Gorsuch Plan” serves as a defensive perimeter. If a Democrat were to win the White House in 2028, they would find:
- A “Major Questions” Veto: Nearly any executive order on the environment or economy could be frozen by a single district judge and upheld by Gorsuch’s majority.
- An “Agency Freeze”: The revival of nondelegation could invalidate decades of existing federal regulations, forcing the government to essentially “re-start” from a 1920s-era baseline.
What’s Next?
Gorsuch is expected to lead the charge in the upcoming “Slaughter v. Trump” case, which centers on the President’s power to fire independent agency heads at will. His ruling there will likely provide the final piece of the puzzle: a judiciary that holds the ultimate power to define the limits of the executive branch.