It's also weird to see the critique of invocations of "democracy" and "equality" based on the fact that they are "contested." Well, of course they are. Maybe the contestation IS what is democratic about it. Hardly seems like a problem to me.

We'd love to get your comments!

I am so honored.

Apparently this link doesn't work, so here it is again: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4520697

This is just our initial draft, so we certainly welcome comments! Download it here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4520697… 6/6

Overall, the evidence we present makes it hard to buy the case for the "linguistic MQD." Textualists want this case to succeed because a "substantive MQD" licenses judges to ignore statutes. But the argument just doesn't work under empirical scrutiny. 5/6

Even more, we find that ordinary readers ARE troubled by under-enforcement of delegating instructions. The MQD seems to have it exactly backwards in some respects. 4/6

We find no evidence that ordinary readers are sensitive to stakes in making clarity judgments, contra Ilan Wurman's piece, and no evidence that they limit their reading of the meaning of broad delegations to only the most reasonable exercises of authority, contra Barrett. 3/6

In the paper, we dissect the different arguments that have been advanced in this vein, identify critical and untested empirical hypotheses at the core of the claims, and then conduct original survey experiments on samples of ordinary readers. 2/6

I'm excited to share some new research I've been working on with Kevin Tobia and Brian Slocum on the claims that we're seeing that the Major Questions Doctrine is just a common sense linguistic canon reflecting how an ordinary reader approaches delegating statutes. It's not. 1/6