A recent U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court decision $($West Virginia v$.$ EPA$)$ was potentially a "big deal" for public health. Prior to this decision, when a federal agency's policy was contested in court, the court would apply a "Chevron Analysis" by first looking at the statute to see if the agency had the authority explicitly provided and then second would assess based on reasonableness of the action. The recent case seems to have changed the to a "Major Questions Doctrine", which essentially focuses on what was expressly authorized in the language of the statute and not the reasonableness of the agency's action in the case of major questions that are more societal in nature $($in this case the EPAs decision to promulgate regulations that required shifting to new forms of energy production over time$).$ Which of the following is the primary reason that public health professionals are concerned about this decision?

Concern about Congress lacking the expertise required to be more specific in writing legislation and a longer timeline to take important public health actions because members cannot come to agreement on the specific details

Concern that Congress will act too quickly in agreeing upon the specific language that will result in more lawsuits brought against a federal agencies

Concern that the judicial branch will no longer pay health policy experts who provide expert witness testimony

Concern that Supreme Court Justices are unfairly burdening agency heads to testify before Congress