quiet but significant divide has emerged on the U.S. Supreme Court over the limits of federal power, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett taking a more cautious approach than some of her colleagues, particularly Justice Clarence Thomas. At the heart of the debate lies the nondelegation doctrine—a long-dormant legal principle that could reshape how the federal government works if reactivated.

The nondelegation doctrine, once used to restrict Congress from transferring its core legislative duties to federal agencies, hasn’t been formally applied since the 1930s. Yet, some members of the Court have recently shown interest in reviving it. Justice Thomas, in particular, has voiced support for a broader application of the doctrine to limit the reach of federal agencies.

But Justice Barrett, appointed to the Court in 2020, expressed doubts during recent oral arguments in a case that challenges the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case, FCC v. Consumers’ Research, involves a federal program that collects funds from communications companies to support phone and internet services in rural and underserved communities. These charges are typically passed on to consumers.

The lawsuit argues that this method of funding represents taxation without direct congressional approval, and it questions whether Congress overstepped its constitutional role by allowing the FCC to manage this financial structure through a private administrator.