President Trump issues four new administrative state-related executive orders

By

Ballotpedia staff

Highlights from this edition of Checks and Balances include Congress passing resolutions to nullify Biden rules and the Wyoming legislature overriding the governor’s veto to enact a bill allowing legislative review of agency regulations. 

In Washington

SCOTUS: state administrative process delays cannot block challenges in state courts

What’s the story?

The United States Supreme Court on Feb. 21 held 5-4 in Williams v. Reed that state courts cannot require plaintiffs to complete every step of an agency’s appeal process before suing under U.S. law if those steps cause unreasonable delays. The decision reversed a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court. 

In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “Under Alabama’s exhaustion requirement, state courts cannot review claims of unlawful delays under §1983 unless and until the claimants first complete the administrative process and receive a final decision on their claims. In essence, Alabama has said that to challenge delays in the administrative process under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, you first have to exhaust the administrative process. Of course, that means that you can never challenge delays in the administrative process.” 

The dissenting judges argued the decision violated state sovereignty. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued the Constitution allows, but does not require, state courts to hear claims based on federal law. He said the Constitution enshrines every state’s right to establish its own judicial structure and scope of authority.  

Justice Thomas wrote, “[T]his case should begin and end with Alabama’s plenary authority to decide which federal matters its state courts will have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear. Alabama exercised that authority to create an exhaustion requirement, and we should respect its decision.”

What’s the background?

Twenty-six plaintiffs sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in 2022 for delays in processing their unemployment claims, alleging violations of due process and other rights under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case on June 30, 2023, ruling the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not exhausted their options for appealing their complaints within the state labor department. 

The claimants appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing the state court’s decision violated precedent established in Patsy v. Board of Regents.

According to Ballotpedia research in May 2020, the administrative procedure laws in 18 states explicitly require people to exhaust administrative remedies before they challenge adjudication actions in state court.

Want to go deeper?

President Trump issues four new administrative state-related executive orders

What’s the story?

President Donald Trump (R) has issued four executive orders (EOs) related to the administrative state since February. This brings the total number of administrative state-related EOs to 12 this year out of 89 EOs issued since January.  

The orders focused on Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiatives, reducing the autonomy of independent agencies, and cutting spending the Trump administration views as unnecessary:

  • Executive Order: Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative: This order requires agencies to hire no more than one employee for every four that depart and requires agency heads to develop hiring plans in consultation with DOGE, prioritizing areas with the highest staff needs. The order also directs agencies to prepare for large-scale workforce reductions.
  • Executive Order: Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative: This order requires agencies to focus enforcement on regulations the Trump administration believes are explicitly authorized under federal statute or the Constitution. The order requires agency heads to work with DOGE to make their regulations consistent with law and administration policy. The order directs the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to incorporate cost-efficiency considerations into its review of all proposed regulations.
  • Executive Order: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies: This order says the president should supervise and control the entire executive branch, including independent agencies. It requires independent agencies to submit all proposed and final regulatory actions to OIRA before publication and establish White House liaisons. The order also directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to (1) provide guidance to agencies on proposing regulations, (2) review agency strategic plans, (3) establish performance standards for independent agencies, and (4) review and adjust agency budgets.     
  • Executive Order: Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy: This order designates specific government entities (such as the Presidio Trust, the Inter-American Foundation, and the United States African Development Foundation) as unnecessary and requires them to (1) eliminate non-statutory functions, (2) reduce staff to the minimum required by law, and (3) report statutory functions to the OMB. The directive instructs the budget office to deny funding requests not mandated under federal law. It also terminates specific programs and federal advisory committees (such as the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, the Community Bank Advisory Council, and the Advisory Committee on Long Covid) and directs Trump administration staff to identify additional entities they determine to be unnecessary.

Want to go deeper?

Congress passes and President Trump signs resolutions nullifying Biden-era environment and energy rules

What’s the story?

Both chambers of Congress passed the following two resolutions in early March to nullify Biden (D) administration rules related to environmental and energy policy. President Trump (R) signed both resolutions on March 14.

What’s the background?

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law passed in 1996, allows Congress to nullify new federal regulations created by government agencies through a joint resolution of disapproval. 

The 119th (2025-2026) Congress has introduced 54 resolutions to overturn Biden-era regulations as of March 17, 2025. Six resolutions have passed one chamber, and two (SJR11 and HJR35) have been enacted so far.

Since the CRA was enacted in 1996, it has been used to repeal 22 rules. More than 500 joint resolutions were introduced between 1996 and March 2025, while over 109,000 federal rules were promulgated in that time.

The 22 approved resolutions of disapproval were signed by three presidents during terms succeeding a president from the opposing party:

  • 1 – George W. Bush (R) signed the first resolution of disapproval in 2001.
  • 16 – Donald Trump (R) signed 15 in 2017 and one in 2018.
  • 3 – Joe Biden (D) signed three in 2021.
  • 2 – Donald Trump (R) signed two in 2025 so far.

Presidents have vetoed 17 CRA resolutions. Click here to learn more about how the CRA has been used since its enactment.

Want to go deeper?

In the states

Wyoming legislature overrides legislative review bill veto

What’s the story?

The Wyoming Senate and House overrode Gov. Mark Gordon’s (R) veto of SF127 on March 6. Under the new law, legislators can introduce legislation seeking to block the implementation or enforcement of major rules (similar to Congress’ disapproval process under the Congressional Review Act (CRA)).

The law requires the Wyoming Legislative Services Office (LSO) to create and distribute regulatory impact analyses to legislators whenever an agency proposes a major rule. It also defines a major rule as having either (1) an annual economic impact of $1 million or more or (2) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation.

Supporters of SF127 argue it will limit government overreach and reduce the state’s regulatory burden. Americans for Prosperity State Director Tyler Lindholm said, “If Wyoming is going to become the freest state in the nation, we can’t have unelected bureaucrats legislating by decree. We urge Governor Gordon to take this golden opportunity to restore limited government and reduce our state’s regulatory burden.”

Gov. Gordon argued in his veto message, “If burdensome regulation is a concern, perhaps the Legislature should examine its own motivations. Are all the new laws absolutely necessary? Moreover, if there are questions about implementation, should the Legislature be more thorough?”

What’s the background?

SF127 was initially introduced on Jan. 21 as a REINS-style state law. REINS-style laws require legislative approval of major rules before they can take effect. To learn more about states with REINS-style laws, click here.

The Senate amended the bill in early February to allow legislative disapproval of major rules but not require the legislature to approve each one.

Both the Senate and House voted on Feb. 27 to pass SF127. It passed the Senate 26-3, with one Democrat joining Republicans to approve it and two Republicans joining one Democrat to oppose it. It passed the House 54-4, with two Democrats joining all Republicans to approve the bill and four Democrats opposing it; four representatives were absent. Gov. Gordon vetoed SF127 on March 4. 

The Senate voted 21-10 on March 5 to override the veto, with eight Republicans joining the chamber’s two Democrats in opposition. The House voted 48-13 on March 6 to override the veto, with seven Republicans joining all six Democrats in opposition. 

Wyoming has a Republican trifecta with Republican supermajorities in both chambers.

Other bills on legislative oversight

SF127 is one of at least 142 bills introduced in 2025 legislative sessions regarding the legislative review of agency actions as of March 15; four have been enacted.

Ballotpedia tracks legislation on the administrative state, including legislation concerning the power balance between each branch of government and executive agencies. Click here to explore our tracker.

Want to go deeper?

Louisiana Civil Service Commission denies governor’s request to remove 900 jobs from protected status

What’s the story?

The Louisiana Civil Service Commission voted 4-2 on Feb. 5 to deny Gov. Jeff Landry’s (R) request to move 394 attorney and 506 engineering jobs in state government to unclassified status. This change would have removed civil service protections, making the positions at-will (eligible for termination without cause and not subject to regular state pay caps). While the move did not apply to current employees, it would have affected future hires to the positions, mostly within the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). 

The commissioners who opposed the request argued it was a last-minute, rushed proposal with consequences that merited more careful review. Commissioner D. Scott Hughes said agencies—not the governor—typically initiate requests to reclassify employees and usually only target a few positions at a time.

The governor’s office argued the request was necessary to quickly recruit qualified professionals and reduce turnover. Deputy Commissioner of Administration Patrick Goldsmith argued removing civil service status would free the positions from regular state pay caps and allow hiring managers to make more competitive salary offers. He argued, “This move would help stop the brain drain from Louisiana.” The governor’s chief counsel said employees would retain the right to file a lawsuit if they believed they experienced illegal coercion or retaliation.

What’s the background?

Gov. Landry’s request first appeared in a one-page letter submitted to the commission on Jan. 29. 

Landry also unsuccessfully sought legislative support last year for a constitutional amendment that would have given the governor more power to decide who serves on the Civil Service Commission. Six of seven commissioners are currently gubernatorial appointees chosen from a list prepared by presidents of the state’s major private universities, and one is elected by the state’s civil service employees.

The move followed a Jan. 20 executive order from President Trump revoking the civil service status of thousands of federal employees.

Civil service classification was originally designed in the late 1800s to reduce the influence of politics in government hiring and firing by creating a range of job protections, such as due process and employees’ right to appeal if they are terminated.   

Want to go deeper?

____________________________________________________________________________

Asymmetry in critiques of the administrative state

Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Emily Chertoff, writing for the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings, published a paper examining what they call asymmetry in modern administrative state reform conversations. They argue critiques of the administrative state often target regulatory and benefit-distributing agencies while leaving enforcement and national security agencies untouched—or even empowered:

The administrative state’s first face, comprising agencies that engage in regulation and distribute benefits, claims the attention of the administrative law scholars and practitioners. … The law governing second-face agencies like ICE, the Defense Department, and the CIA is very different. It allows them to operate without a clear delegation of power, to process knowledge in secret to identify threats, and to exercise control over populations.

Want to go deeper? 

  • Click here to read the full text of “The Administrative State’s Two Faces” by Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Emily Chertoff.

____________________________________________________________________________

Regulatory tally

Congressional Review Act

Notable regulation

  • OIRA concluded its review of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rule removing regulations that implemented the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requiring federal agencies to prepare detailed statements for proposed major actions that were deemed to significantly affect environmental quality. CEQ removed the regulations pursuant to Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy.
  • OIRA concluded that the rule was significant but not economically significant.

Want to go deeper?