Reposted by HR Puff n Stuff
DoorDash spent $1.4M trying to stop Zohran Mamdani from becoming mayor.
This week's historic $131.5M enforcement action against DoorDash for underpaying NYC delivery workers shows why.
Yet another reminder that the only thing that can beat organized money is organized people.
theintercept.com
DoorDash Spent $1.4 Million Trying to Stop Mamdani From Becoming Mayor. Now We Know Why.
In a wage-theft settlement, DoorDash now has to pay its workers around 100 times what it spent trying to beat Zohran Mam
![DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
25-250 U.
V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
[February 20, 2026]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
The President claims that Congress delegated to him an
extraordinary power in the International Emergency Eco-
nomic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the power to impose tariffs on
practically any products he wants, from any countries he
chooses, in any amounts he selects. Applying the major
questions doctrine, the principal opinion rejects that argu-
ment. I join in full. The Constitution lodges the Nation's
lawmaking powers in Congress alone, and the major ques-
tions doctrine safeguards that assignment against execu-
tive encroachment. Under the doctrine's terms, the Presi-
dent must identify clear statutory authority for the
extraordinary delegated power he claims. And, as the prin-
cipal opinion explains, that is a standard he cannot meet.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wjvc76fsrmfqqtx5vuia7lrf/bafkreie55knnnomfe7usoascbdj3pdnu4qfv656oh7umcoknshv3mofe7q)
![Whatever else might be said about Congress's work in
IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the
sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.
Not everyone sees it this way. Past critics of the major
questions doctrine do not object to its application in this
case, and they even join much of today's principal opinion.
But, they insist, they can reach the same result by employ-
ing only routine tools of statutory interpretation. Post, at 1
(KAGAN, J., joined by SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., con-
curring in part and concurring in judgment). Meanwhile,
one colleague who joins the principal opinion in full sug-
gests the major questions doctrine is nothing more than
routine statutory interpretation. Post, at 1 (BARRETT, J.,
concurring). Still others who have joined major questions
decisions in the past dissent from today's application of the
doctrine. Post, at 1 (KAVANAUGH, J., joined by THOMAS and
ALITO, JJ., dissenting). Finally, seeking to sidestep the ma-
jor questions doctrine altogether, one colleague submits
that Congress may hand over to the President most of its
powers, including the tariff power, without limit. Post, at
1-2 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). It is an interesting turn of
events. Each camp warrants a visit.
I
Start with the critics. In the past, they have criticized
the major questions doctrine for two main reasons. The doc-
trine, they have suggested, is a novelty without basis in
law. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 779(2022)
(KAGAN, J., joined by, inter alios, SOTOMAYOR, J., dissent-
ing) (calling the doctrine a "special cano[n]" that has "mag-
ically appear[ed]"). And, they have argued, the doctrine is
rooted in an "anti-administrative-state stance" that pre-
vents Congress from employing executive agency officials to
"d[o] important work." Id., at 780. Today, the critics pro-
ceed differently. They join a section of the principal opinion
that applies the major questions doctrine. Ante, at 14-20.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wjvc76fsrmfqqtx5vuia7lrf/bafkreiexu47fq6of4vbejnnjkhyjsq4eygmbapvmxvetrjlgyg6nu667z4)
