Author

Caitlin Styrsky

Caitlin Styrsky is a staff writer at Ballotpedia and can be reached at caitlin.styrsky@ballotpedia.org

FDA to implement coronavirus guidance without public comment

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that the agency would implement coronavirus guidance documents without first holding comment periods to solicit public feedback. The agency stated that it would not be feasible or appropriate to review public comments before implementing coronavirus guidance documents.

Guidance documents, which advise interested parties about how agencies implement regulations, are exempt from the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including public comment periods. However, the FDA encourages members of the public to provide feedback on its draft guidance documents. The agency’s internal Good Guidance Practices regulation requires the FDA to hold comment periods prior to implementing guidance documents that put forth new statutory or regulatory interpretations, make significant changes to policy interpretations, feature complex scientific subject matter, or involve controversial issues.

The FDA stated that it would continue to hold public comment periods on the coronavirus guidance documents and retroactively revise guidance as needed based on public feedback. The agency has issued coronavirus-related guidance documents in recent weeks, including guidance on the production of alcohol-based hand sanitizer to help boost supply, guidance on conducting clinical trials for medical products during the coronavirus outbreak, and guidance on diagnostic coronavirus tests for clinical laboratories and commercial manufacturers.

Additional reading:


Federal Register weekly update; no new significant regulations

The _Federal Register_ is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity.

From March 16 to March 20, the _Federal Register_ grew by 1,494 pages for a year-to-date total of 16,226 pages. Over the same period in 2019 and 2018, the _Federal Register_ reached 10,970 pages and 12,848 pages, respectively. As of March 20, the 2020 total led the 2019 total by 5,256 pages and the 2018 total by 3,378 pages.

The _Federal Register_ hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s _Federal Register_ featured the following 692 documents:
• 568 notices
• seven presidential documents
• 35 proposed rules
• 82 final rules
No rules were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—meaning that they could have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules. The Trump administration in 2020 has issued 10 significant proposed rules and 16 significant final rules as of March 20.

Not all rules issued by the Trump administration are regulatory actions. Some rules are deregulatory actions pursuant to President Trump’s (R) Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to eliminate two old significant regulations for each new significant regulation issued.

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the _Federal Register_ as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.

Click here to find more information about weekly additions to the _Federal Register_ in 2018 and 2017.

Click here to find yearly information about additions to the _Federal Register_ from 1936 to 2018.



OMB requests emergency coronavirus funding for federal agencies, urges telework flexibility

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on March 17 requested $45.8 billion in emergency funding to boost agency response efforts to the coronavirus outbreak. The funding aims to help agencies “maintain [full operational] capacity and ensure that resource needs created by the pandemic response are met,” according to the request.

Much of the requested funding seeks to increase telework access for agency employees, including investments in devices, software licenses, cybersecurity, and expanded network capacities. OMB issued guidance on March 12 urging agency heads to allow for maximum telework flexibility.

OMB oversees executive agency performance, federal procurement, financial management, and information policy. The agency also reviews significant regulations issued by executive agencies, coordinates agency communications with Congress, and assists the president with executive orders and presidential memoranda.

Additional reading:


SCOTUS case could allow more opportunities to challenge federal regulations

Administrative State-5 Circles-dark text-straight with header-edited.png

The Checks and Balances Letter delivers news and information from Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Project, including pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law.

This edition:

In this month’s edition of Checks and Balances, we review an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that could allow for more religious challenges to federal regulations; the nationwide enforceability of the Trump administration’s public charge rule; and Justice Clarence Thomas’ willingness to reconsider Brand X deference. Our feature this month highlights a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy that examines overcriminalization in agency rules.

At the state level, we review a trio of state responses to judicial deference in Mississippi, Indiana, and Georgia; the denial of Arkansas’ Medicaid work requirements by an appellate court; and an update on the state of New York’s plastic bag ban. As always, we wrap up with our Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 203 proposed rules and 265 final rules added to the Federal Register in February and OIRA’s regulatory review activity.

The Checks and Balances Letter

Key readings.jpg

In Washington

SCOTUS case could allow more opportunities to challenge federal regulations

What’s the story? A U.S. Supreme Court case scheduled for oral argument on April 29 could clarify when notice-and-comment procedures satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), allowing individuals to challenge more federal laws and regulations.
The case, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, concerns the Trump administration’s legal authority to issue rules providing a religious or moral exemption to the contraception mandate created under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in July 2019 upheld a nationwide injunction that blocked the new exemption rules from going into effect. The court held that the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not have legal permission to modify Obamacare’s contraceptive requirements.
Congress retained the authority to exempt employers from providing contraceptive coverage under Obamacare and did not delegate exemption authority to agencies, according to the Third Circuit.
The court also held that the agencies violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements by failing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking or solicit public comments.
Want to go deeper?

SCOTUS allows nationwide enforcement of rule restricting admissibility of immigrants needing public assistance

What’s the story? The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) public charge rule is now enforceable nationwide after the U.S. Supreme Court on February 21 voted 5-4 to stay an Illinois injunction blocking statewide enforcement of the rule. The court stayed a separate nationwide injunction on January 27 and appellate courts lifted three additional injunctions in December 2019.
The public charge rule, issued by DHS in August 2019, authorizes the federal government to deny immigrants a visa or a green card if they rely on government assistance.
Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued the statewide injunction blocking the rule in October 2019. Feinerman held that the rule would impose financial consequences on Cook County and that DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously beyond the scope of its authority when it made the public charge rule.
DHS requested that the U.S. Supreme Court lift the statewide injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the request for a stay. Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh ruled in favor of the stay while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion with the order, arguing, “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”
The decision allows the rule to take effect nationwide pending a final decision in Wolf v. Cook County, Ill. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument in the case on February 26.
Want to go deeper?

Justice Thomas labels deference doctrine inconsistent with the Constitution

What’s the story? U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on February 24 stated that he would reconsider his 2005 opinion in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that gave rise to the Brand X deference doctrine.
Thomas dissented from the majority’s decision not to hear Baldwin v. United States, a case challenging Brand X deference. He argued that Brand X deference appears to be “inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and traditional tools of statutory interpretation.”
The Brand X case concerned an application of the Chevron deference doctrine. Under Chevron deference, federal courts must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute. Brand X built on Chevron’s foundation by requiring courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes even when courts previously held contrary views.
Justice Thomas argued that both deference precedents undermined the requirements of the United States Constitution. He wrote, “Regrettably, Brand X has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism. Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations. Brand X may well follow from Chevron, but in so doing, it poignantly lays bare the flaws of our entire executive-deference jurisprudence. Even if the Court is not willing to question Chevron itself, at the very least, we should consider taking a step away from the abyss by revisiting Brand X.”
Want to go deeper?

In the states

Mississippi Supreme Court justices call for end to state deference doctrine

What’s the story? Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Josiah Coleman on February 13 wrote a dissenting opinion in Central Mississippi Medical Center v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid calling for an end to the state’s judicial practice of deferring to agency interpretations of regulations. The opinion was joined by Justice T. Kenneth Griffis and joined in part by Justices Leslie King and Jim Kitchens.
Court precedent from a 2006 case established the state’s deference standard that “an agency’s interpretation of a rule governing the agency’s operation is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo, but with great deference to the agency’s interpretation.”
Coleman argued in part that the deference practice violates the Mississippi Constitution’s separation of powers provision. “In ceding the rule-interpreting power of the courts to the executive branch by giving deference to agency interpretation of regulations,” wrote Coleman, “the Court in the past has put all or part of all three functions of government—rule making, rule enforcement, and rule interpretation—in the hands of one branch.”
The practice of deferring to agency interpretations of regulations is known as Auer deference at the federal level. The U.S. Supreme Court limited the types of agency interpretations that qualify for Auer deference in the 2019 case Kisor v. Wilkie.
The Mississippi Supreme Court issued a 2008 opinion that ended the state’s judicial practice of deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—known as Chevron deference at the federal level—in a 2008 opinion.
Want to go deeper?

Georgia lawmakers vote to limit judicial deference

What’s the story? The Georgia House of Representatives voted 158-8 on February 18 to approve legislation that would end the practice of judicial deference to tax regulations in the state. House Bill 538—sponsored by state Representatives Todd Jones (R), Mitchell Scoggins (R), and Brett Harrell (R)—would require the Georgia Tax Tribunal to decide all questions of law without deference to the regulations or policy interpretations of the state’s Department of Revenue.
If the legislation becomes law, Georgia would join a group of other states that have addressed judicial deference practices in recent years. Since 2008, Wisconsin, Florida, Mississippi, Arizona, and Michigan have taken executive, judicial, or legislative action to prohibit some form of judicial deference to state agencies.
Want to go deeper?

Indiana Supreme Court justice questions state’s judicial deference requirements

What’s the story? Justice Geoffrey Slaughter of the Indiana Supreme Court wrote a separate note from the court’s February 24 order denying the transfer of Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Possner that questioned the state’s judicial deference requirements.
The Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency’s factfinding if the agency provides sufficient evidence on the record.
Slaughter wrote, “Under the current system, a government agency both finds the facts and interprets the statutes that supply the rules of decision, and the courts’ only role (as we have interpreted AOPA) is to defer to all aspects of the agency’s decision-making.”
Slaughter stated that he was open to hearing legal challenges to the deference requirements. “In a future case, where the issues are raised and the arguments developed, I am open to entertaining legal challenges to this system for adjudicating the legal disputes that our legislature assigns agencies to resolve in the first instance, subject only to a highly circumscribed right of judicial review as set forth in AOPA.”
Want to go deeper?

State-level Medicaid work requirements dealt blow by federal court panel

What’s the story? A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on February 14 blocked a waiver from the Trump administration that would have allowed the state of Arkansas to institute work requirements for Medicaid recipients.
Judges Cornelia Pillard, Harry Edwards, and David Sentelle (appointed by Presidents Barack Obama (D), Jimmy Carter (D), and Ronald Reagan (R), respectively) ruled in Gresham v. Azar that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test when he approved a waiver request from Arkansas requiring its Medicaid beneficiaries to work at least 80 hours per month.
The judges held that Azar was wrong not to consider whether the Arkansas work requirements would prevent some people from receiving health care coverage. Congress intended Medicaid to provide health care coverage, according to the panel, and that HHS must uphold that purpose when approving state coverage plans.
The Trump administration announced in January 2018 that it would allow states to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients by obtaining waivers from HHS. Judge James Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2019 blocked waivers for Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Hampshire from going into effect. He later blocked Michigan’s work requirements from taking effect on March 4.
New Hampshire’s appeal is pending before the D.C. Circuit and Michigan could follow suit. Newly elected Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (D) issued an executive order rescinding the state’s work requirements in December 2019.
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) told the Associated Press that he hopes the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is difficult to understand how this purpose is inconsistent with federal law,” he said. “The court’s ruling undermines broad public support for expanded health care coverage for those struggling financially.”
Want to go deeper?

New York agency plastic bag ban leaves New Yorkers holding the bag

What’s the story? New York’s ban on single-use plastic bags took effect March 1, and for state residents, that means they must switch to reusable bags, or pay a five-cent per bag fee for paper bags.
Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) signed the ban into law in August 2019. Similar prohibitions are currently in effect in California, Hawaii, and Oregon. Additional bans in Maine and Vermont take effect in April and July, respectively.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) released final regulations to administer the measure in late February. The rules prohibit the use of single-use plastic bags by any retailer that collects sales tax, with certain exceptions, and gives counties and cities the option to charge shoppers a five-cent fee on paper bags. Retailers in violation of the rules face a $250 fine for the first offense and a $500 fine for each subsequent violation.
Want to go deeper?

Report examines overcriminalization in agency rules

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy issued a recent report highlighting the overcriminalization that results from allowing administrative agencies to issue regulations that define criminal behavior. The report argues that lawmakers’ delegations of authority to administrative agencies to promulgate binding rules result in innumerable, overly precise regulations that overcriminalize society and reduce respect for the law:
“One of the largest problems with creating crimes through administrative agencies is that it leads to an increase in criminally liable behavior — in other words, the overcriminalization of society. Overcriminalization is the idea that there are so many laws carrying criminal sanctions that a reasonably well-informed, well-intentioned person could not presume to know whether their actions were legal or not. …
Having so many administrative rules also makes it impossible for law enforcement and administrative agencies to enforce all of them. The state has limited resources and limited knowledge and must ultimately choose which rules it will devote resources to enforcing and which ones it will not. From the viewpoint of the average citizen, then, enforcement appears arbitrary.
This lowers citizens’ respect for the law and weakens the rule of law. One consequence is that the Legislature’s ability to guide citizens’ behavior through the use of the law diminishes. Moreover, arbitrarily enforced rules may lead citizens to believe that those charged with crimes are targeted by the government for some reason unrelated to its duty to uphold the law and protect public safety. This contributes to distrust in government, in particular to its ability to impartially enforce the law.”
Want to go deeper?

Regulatory tally

Federal Register

  • The Federal Register in February reached 12,206 pages. The number of pages at the end of each February during the Obama administration (2009-2016) averaged 11,074 pages.
  • The February Federal Register included 203 proposed rules and 265 final rules. These included a rule approving a landfill emission plan in Delaware, a rule adjusting Copyright Office fees for inflation, and a rule imposing restrictions on archaeological imports from Jordan, among others.
Want to go deeper?

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

OIRA’s recent regulatory review activity includes:
  • Review of 44 significant regulatory actions. Between 2009-2016, the Obama administration reviewed an average of 40 significant regulatory actions each February.
  • One rule approved without change; recommended changes to 36 proposed rules; seven rules withdrawn.
  • OIRA reviewed 23 significant rules in February 2019, 20 significant rules in February 2018, and three significant rules in February 2017.
  • As of March 2, 2020, OIRA’s website listed 114 regulatory actions under review.
Want to go deeper?
Click here to learn more.


Federal Register weekly update; 62 new final rules published

The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity.

From March 9 to March 13, the Federal Register grew by 1,258 pages for a year-to-date total of 14,732 pages. Over the same period in 2019 and 2018, the Federal Register reached 9,692 pages and 11,844 pages, respectively. As of March 13, the 2020 total led the 2019 total by 5,040 pages and the 2018 total by 2,888 pages.

The Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 520 documents:
• 420 notices
• three presidential documents
• 35 proposed rules
• 62 final rules
One proposed rule was deemed significant under E.O. 12866—meaning that it could have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules. The Trump administration in 2020 has issued 10 significant proposed rules and 16 significant final rules as of March 13.

Not all rules issued by the Trump administration are regulatory actions. Some rules are deregulatory actions pursuant to President Trump’s (R) Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to eliminate two old significant regulations for each new significant regulation issued.

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.

Additional reading:
Click here to find yearly information about additions to the Federal Register  from 1936 to 2016:



Federal agencies roll out guidance document websites

Federal agencies have taken steps to increase public access to agency guidance documents after the February 28 deadline passed for agencies to comply with Executive Order 13891, which required agencies to make guidance documents publicly available through an online portal.

Guidance documents—non-binding agency publications that explain, interpret, or advise on rules, laws, and procedures—have been historically difficult for regulated parties to locate and follow. Guidance can take many forms, ranging from memoranda and notices to news releases and blog posts, which can compound problems of clarity and access. President Donald Trump (R) aimed to facilitate public access to agency guidance documents by issuing Executive Order 13891 in October 2019. The executive order sought in part to increase regulatory transparency by requiring federal departments and agencies to make guidance documents publicly available online.

Though some agencies have yet to comply with the executive order (there is no penalty for noncompliance), a number of major federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and the Small Business Administration, have published new guidance document portals on their websites.

“EPA has followed through on President Trump’s direction to streamline and improve the transparency of regulatory guidance issued by the agency,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a press release. “This new online database is a major milestone in government transparency. Never before has the American public had access to all of the Agency’s guidance documents.”

Additional reading:


Federal Register weekly update; lowest weekly page total since first week of January

The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity.

From March 2 to March 6, the Federal Register grew by 1,268 pages for a year-to-date total of 13,474 pages. Over the same period in 2019 and 2018, the Federal Register reached 8,588 pages and 10,552 pages, respectively. As of March 6, the 2020 total led the 2019 total by 4,886 pages and the 2018 total by 2,922 pages.

The Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 641 documents:
• 420 notices
• 11 presidential documents
• 30 proposed rules
• 59 final rules

Two proposed rules were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—meaning that they could have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules. The Trump administration in 2020 has issued nine significant proposed rules and 16 significant final rules as of March 6.

Not all rules issued by the Trump administration are regulatory actions. Some rules are deregulatory actions pursuant to President Trump’s (R) Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to eliminate two old significant regulations for each new significant regulation issued.

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.

Additional reading:



OIRA reviewed 44 significant rules in February

The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviewed a total of 44 significant regulatory actions issued by federal agencies in February 2020. The agency approved one rule without changes and approved the intent of 36 rules while recommending changes to their content. Agencies withdrew seven rules from the review process.

OIRA reviewed 23 significant regulatory actions in February 2019, 20 significant regulatory actions in February 2018, and three significant regulatory actions in January 2017. During the Obama administration from 2009-2016, OIRA reviewed an average of 40 significant regulatory actions each February.

OIRA has reviewed a total of 76 significant rules so far in 2020. The agency reviewed a total of 475 significant rules in 2019, 355 significant rules in 2018, and 237 significant rules in 2017.

As of March 2, 2020, OIRA’s website listed 114 regulatory actions under review.

OIRA is responsible for reviewing and coordinating what it deems to be all significant regulatory actions made by federal agencies, with the exception of independent federal agencies. Significant regulatory actions include agency rules that have had or may have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state and local governments and communities. These regulatory actions may also conflict with other regulations or with the priorities of the president.

Additional reading:



Federal Register weekly update; 2020 page total exceeds 10,000 pages

The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity.

From February 17 to February 21, the Federal Register grew by 1,552 pages for a year-to-date total of 10,268 pages. Over the same period in 2019 and 2018, the _Federal Register_ reached 5,950 pages and 8,164 pages, respectively. As of February 21, the 2020 total led the 2019 total by 4,318 pages and the 2018 total by 2,104 pages.

The Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 539 documents:

  • 358 notices
  • three presidential documents
  • 41 proposed rules
  • 53 final rules

Two final rules and two proposed rules were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—meaning that they could have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules. The Trump administration in 2020 has issued five significant proposed rules and 13 significant final rules as of February 21.

Not all rules issued by the Trump administration are regulatory actions. Some rules are deregulatory actions pursuant to President Trump’s (R) Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to eliminate two old significant regulations for each new significant regulation issued.

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.

Click here to find more information about weekly additions to the Federal Register in 2018 and 2017.

Click here to find yearly information about additions to the Federal Register from 1936 to 2016.


Georgia lawmakers vote to limit judicial deference

The Georgia House of Representatives voted 158-8 on Tuesday to approve legislation that would end the practice of judicial deference to tax regulations in the state. House Bill 538—sponsored by state Representatives Todd Jones (R), Mitchell Scoggins (R), and Brett Harrell (R)—would require the Georgia Tax Tribunal to decide all questions of law without deference to the regulations or policy interpretations of the state’s Department of Revenue.

Judicial deference is a principle of administrative law that instructs federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes or regulations. State-level approaches to judicial deference vary significantly, and state courts are not obliged to defer to state-level administrative agencies or adopt federal deference doctrines. Thirty-six states, however, have implemented forms of judicial deference to state administrative agencies similar to the federal deference doctrines.

If the legislation becomes law, Georgia would join a group of other states that have addressed judicial deference practices in recent years. Since 2008, Wisconsin, Florida, Mississippi, Arizona, and Michigan have taken executive, judicial, or legislative action to prohibit judicial deference to state agencies.

Ballotpedia tracks state responses to judicial deference as part of The Administrative State Project.

Click here to find out more.

Additional reading:


Bitnami