The Checks & Balances Letter, July 2025

By

Ballotpedia staff

Highlights from this edition of Checks and Balances include deep dives into this term’s administrative state Supreme Court decisions and the North Carolina governor’s veto of state REINS legislation. 

In Washington

Supreme Court changes agency power in 13 administrative state rulings

What’s the story?

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its October 2024 term on June 27, 2025, with a series of rulings on the administrative state. The Court issued 13 decisions that affected federal agency operations and oversight. The most notable opinions from the term included decisions:

  • narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions,
  • limiting where companies can file lawsuits to challenge regulations, and
  • making it easier for third parties to challenge agency actions. 

SCOTUS also clarified constitutional boundaries on agency appointments, declined to revive broad nondelegation challenges, and raised the bar for regulatory authority under ambiguous statutes.

Why does it matter? 

While some decisions upheld existing agency structures or interpretations, the overall trend pointed to tighter judicial oversight. Even rulings that preserved agency discretion, such as those involving firearm rules and telecom funding, signaled that federal regulatory power will face closer scrutiny moving forward.

Here’s a snapshot of the term’s key administrative state decisions, organized by theme:

Judicial oversight and access

  • In Trump v. CASA, Inc. (6–3), SCOTUS ruled lower courts exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against an executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The decision restricts universal injunctions and requires federal courts to limit relief to the plaintiffs before them.
  • In Williams v. Reed (5–4), the Court held plaintiffs do not have to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing a civil rights claim if the delays themselves are part of the legal challenge. The decision limits procedural barriers to judicial review and increases access to courts in cases involving alleged rights violations by state agencies.
  • In Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (8–0), the justices unanimously decided challenges to state-specific EPA actions under the Clean Air Act must occur in regional circuit courts, not the D.C. Circuit. The ruling decentralizes judicial review and strengthens venue limits based on geography.
  • In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC (7–2), the Court held challenges to the EPA decision with national scope must be filed in the D.C. Circuit. The ruling limits companies from choosing favorable courts and centralizes judicial review of national EPA actions.
  • In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (9–0), the Court unanimously held courts lack jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretionary decision to revoke a visa petition based on a sham-marriage finding. The ruling affirms limits on judicial review of discretionary agency actions under federal immigration law.
  • In Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) v. Texas (6–3), SCOTUS held that states and private parties not involved in the original agency proceeding lacked standing under the Hobbs Act to challenge a nuclear waste license. The Hobbs Act allows only direct parties to certain agency decisions to seek appellate review. The ruling narrows access to judicial review and leaves questions about federal licensing authority.
  • In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (6–3), the Court held the Hobbs Act does not require district courts to adopt an agency’s legal interpretation when resolving private disputes. The ruling limits the binding effect of agency interpretations outside formal administrative challenges and reinforces the judiciary’s independent role in statutory interpretation.

Statutory limits and agency power

  • In Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (7–2), the Court held that fuel producers had standing to challenge the EPA’s waiver allowing California to set its own vehicle emissions standards, based on the regulation’s predicted economic effects. The decision expands access to judicial review for indirectly affected parties in administrative law cases and reflects continued scrutiny of agency authority.
  • In Bondi v. VanDerStok (7–2), SCOTUS decided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) has authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate firearm parts kits that can readily be assembled into functional weapons. The ruling affirmed the agency’s interpretation of its statutory authority, signaling judicial deference that contrasted with other decisions.
  • In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (8-0), SCOTUS unanimously held the Surface Transportation Board was not required under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess environmental impacts of projects beyond its regulatory authority. The ruling limited the scope of environmental review obligations and affirmed judicial deference to agency decisions under NEPA.
  • In City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (5–4), the justices decided the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by imposing permitting requirements not explicitly authorized by statute. The ruling limits agency discretion in environmental enforcement and constrains regulatory authority. 
  • In FCC v. Consumers’ Research (6–3), the Court upheld Congress’s delegation of authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to administer the Universal Service Fund and found no nondelegation violation in the FCC’s use of a private administrator’s projections. The ruling reaffirms the constitutionality of administrative funding structures and does not apply the nondelegation doctrine as a constraint on agency authority.

Agency structure and appointments

  • In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. (6–3), the Supreme Court held members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers who may be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The ruling upholds the task force’s structure under the Affordable Care Act and supports executive supervision as a constitutional check on agency personnel.

Want to go deeper?

In the States

North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes state-level REINS Act

What’s the story?

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) vetoed House Bill 402—which contained REINS-like requirements for state agency rulemaking—on June 27. HB 402 passed the state Senate 26-17 along party lines with Republican support on June 10 and the state House 70-44, with three Democrats supporting the bill on June 17. The bill needs three-fifths (60%) support in each chamber to override the governor’s veto.

Why does it matter?

If enacted, HB 402 would introduce legislative approval requirements for North Carolina agency rules similar to the proposed federal-level REINS Act. Under the bill, proposed regulations costing $20 million or more over a five-year period would not take effect unless the legislature passes a bill approving them. 

The bill would also create rulemaking requirements for agencies led by a board, commission, or other multi-person group. For such agencies to make rules costing $1 million or more over five years, two-thirds of the members would need to approve under the bill. The bill would require unanimous approval for rules costing $10 million or more over five years.

What are the arguments?

Supporters of HB 402 argue it would reduce the power of unelected officials. Donald Bryson—CEO of the right-leaning John Locke Foundation—issued a statement in favor of the bill, saying, “unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t impose million-dollar regulations in the dark — but Governor Stein’s veto of the REINS Act protects that very overreach. By rejecting this commonsense reform, the governor has chosen bureaucratic power over democratic accountability.”

Opponents of HB 402 argue it would impede the rulemaking process. Gov. Stein said in the veto press release that “this bill would make it harder for the state to keep people’s drinking water clean from PFAS and other dangerous chemicals, their air free from toxic pollutants, and their health care facilities providing high quality care. It would impose red tape, including an unworkable unanimity requirement, that would hamstring the decision-making of agencies, boards, and commissions, making them less effective at protecting people’s health, safety, and welfare.”

What is the background?

Ballotpedia classifies a state-level law as similar to the proposed federal-level REINS Act if it has the following two requirements: (1) a cost-benefit analysis requirement that defines a specific financial impact threshold and (2) proactive legislative action on any agency rule above the threshold before that rule can take effect.

Seven states have enacted REINS-like laws since 2010, with four states (Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma, and Louisiana) having enacted REINS-like laws in 2025 (as of July 9).  

North Carolina’s legislative session is scheduled to last until November 5, 2025.

Ballotpedia tracks and analyzes legislative oversight laws (including REINS-style policies), judicial deference and review legislation, executive oversight requirements, and other categories as part of our administrative state legislation tracker. Ballotpedia uses five pillars to understand the administrative state. 

Want to go deeper?

Featured Commentary

  • What is the place of the Fed in debates about Humphrey’s Executor? As conversations about presidential removal of independent executive agency leaders continue, Graham Steele of Stanford School of Law argues the Federal Reserve is unlike other agencies.

Want to go deeper?

  • Click here to read the full text of the article.

Regulatory Highlight

Congressional Review Act

  • The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to repeal rules with joint resolutions of disapproval. The 119th Congress has 60 working legislative days from the 15th day of the session to introduce resolutions to disapprove regulations the Biden administration issued after Aug. 16, 2024. The lookback period ended in early May, although several resolutions of disapproval have been introduced targeting 2024 rules after May.
    • 80 CRA resolutions have been introduced to repeal Biden-era regulations. Twenty resolutions crossed over, 16 have passed both chambers, and 16 were signed into law, as of July 9. 
    • In his two terms, President Donald Trump (R) has signed 32 of the 36 total CRA resolutions ever adopted. President George W. Bush signed one in 2001, and President Joe Biden signed three in 2021.

Notable regulation

Want to go deeper? 

Pick of the News

Federal

  • Trump signs omnibus policy bill: President Trump signed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill – H.R. 1 – known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Ballotpedia
  • Trump administration considering pocket rescission of appropriated funds: Trump administration officials are suggesting they may use a little-used process known as pocket rescission to freeze congressionally appropriated funds. New York Times
  • Judge orders reinstatement of dismissed commissioners: A federal district judge ordered the reinstatement of three members of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission appointed by former President Joe Biden (D). President Trump removed them earlier this year. Reuters
  • Judge grants preliminary injunction against DOT action tying federal grants to immigration enforcement: A federal district judge ruled against a directive from Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, which tied federal funding for states to their immigration enforcement operations. The Hill
  • Dismissed agency leaders still on the job: Several independent board and commission appointees whom President Trump attempted to dismiss are still acting as employees and participating in agency activities. Politico
  • OPM issues final rule on probationary federal employees: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final rule that would make it easier to dismiss probationary federal employees. Federal News Network
  • Federal officials told to stop DOGE approval process for grants website: Executive officials were instructed to stop providing control over federal grantmaking through the website grants.gov to DOGE employees. DOGE received this access in April. Washington Post

State

  • Missouri becomes fourth state in 2025 to pass a law restricting judicial deference: The Missouri Legislature passed a bill that would prohibit state courts from deferring to agency interpretations of state law. Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed the bill on July 11. Ballotpedia
  • Forbes reports that ‘Nearly A Quarter Of All States Will Likely Have A REINS Act By 2026’: 18 states have enacted, passed, or are considering REINS-like state laws (or laws with REINS-like features) as of June 2025. Eight states have passed laws meeting Ballotpedia’s definition of a REINS-style state law. Forbes

Legislative Tracking Update

Since our last newsletter edition, Ballotpedia tracked significant legislative action (enactments, vetoes, and passage through both chambers) in 17 states and Congress on 77 bills related to the administrative state. Sixteen states and Congress enacted or adopted 58 bills, five states passed 14 bills in both chambers that were yet to be enacted, and governors in three states vetoed five bills.   

Ballotpedia has tracked a total of 2,040 bills related to the administrative state in 2025 as of July 15.