主要問題原則與美國管制國家之法理基礎──歷史背景、近期發展及可能啟示

Major Questions Doctrine and the Legal Foundation for the United States Regulatory State: Historical Background, Recent Developments, and Potential Lessons

本文將美國最高法院近年對主要問題原則的討論，放在管制國家法理基礎的歷史發展脈絡上，將其理解為保守派大法官對管制國家法理基礎的攻擊，試圖藉此節制美國聯邦政府管制權責的持續擴張。自由與保守派大法官圍繞此論辯展現的不同立場，背後除反映其對尊重專業或捍衛民主的價值取捨，也反映其對行政權力正當性來源──尤其是國會授權和管制專業──的不同想像。本文認為上述論辯的根源來自於管制國家與法治主義的內在衝突，為思考我國脈絡應如何因應此衝突，本文肆、比較我國和美國處理此衝突的不同經驗，進而提出進一步階層化我國授權明確性原則的倡議，亦即區分最寬鬆（無須法律保留）、中等程度（允許整體關聯脈絡之條文解釋）及較嚴格（需要法律文字之直接、明確、清楚授權）等三層次審查密度，並以基本權如何在特定管制脈絡獲得實現或遭到侵害，作為應適用何種密度之判斷標準。

This paper places recent discussions by the US Supreme Court on the major questions doctrine within the historical context of the development of the legal foundation for the federal regulatory state. It interprets recent developments as conservative attacks on this legal foundation, aimed at curbing the ongoing expansion of federal government regulatory authority. The differing positions taken by liberal and conservative judges in this debate reflect not only their priorities—valuing expertise or defending democracy—but also reveal their different imaginations of the sources of legitimacy for executive authority, such as congressional authorization and regulatory expertise.
This article argues that this everlasting debate originates from the inherent conflict between the regulatory state and the rule of law. To consider how our country should respond to this conflict, Part IV examines how Taiwan and the United States handle this issue differently. It proposes further stratifying the principle of clarity of legal authorization by distinguishing among three standards of review: the loose (requiring no legal reservation), the moderate (allowing interpretation of provisions within a broader context), and the strict (demanding direct, explicit, and clear legal authorization). More importantly, the determination of which level should apply in particular cases should be based on how fundamental rights are realized or infringed upon within specific regulatory contexts.