Tagadministrative state

Colorado Supreme Court rules that state board must defer to disciplinary actions taken by other state agencies

Photo of Colorado State Supreme Court building

On Dec. 21, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in DOC v. Stiles that the Colorado State Personnel Board (Board) must defer to disciplinary decisions made by state agencies. The court’s decision aimed to shed light on the standard the Board must apply when reviewing other state agencies’ disciplinary decisions. 

The court held that when the Board considers appeals of decisions to discipline agency employees, they must apply the “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law” standard instead of reviewing the facts of the case on a de novo basis. 

The arbitrary or capricious standard instructs the Board to give deference to the disciplinary action taken by the state agency. It prevents the Board from overturning such actions unless the agency failed to give honest consideration to the evidence involved in the case or violated a law or rule. De novo review would allow the Board to evaluate the evidence in the case and make its own decision without regard for the earlier conclusions made by the state agency that decided to discipline an employee.

The court remanded the case back to the state administrative law judge (ALJ), working for the Board, who had overruled the state agency disciplinary action at issue in the case. 

In the opening paragraph of the opinion announcing the decision, Justice Carlos Samour wrote about the stakes of the case in the following way: “At a micro level, it will affect whether Mathew Mark Stiles keeps his job at the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). At a macro level, it will affect the 30,000-plus other certified state employees in Colorado’s personnel system.”

The standard articulated by the Colorado Supreme Court is similar to the arbitrary-or-capricious test established by the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Under that test, courts reviewing agency actions invalidate any that they find to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

To learn more about state administrative law judges or judicial deference, see here:

Additional reading:

Text of the decision:



Federal Register weekly update: New year, new significant rules

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.

The Federal Register kicked off 2021 by publishing 1,736 pages during the week of Jan. 4 to Jan. 8. Over the same period in 2020, 2019, and 2018, the Federal Register published 418 pages, 34 pages, and 704 pages, respectively. As of Jan. 8, the 2021 total led the 2020 total by 1,318 pages, the 2019 total by 1,702 pages, and the 2018 total by 1,032 pages. 

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

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 486 documents:

  • 403 notices
  • seven presidential documents
  • 24 proposed rules
  • 52 final rules

One proposed rule concerning critical habitat designation for the ringed seal and two final rules regarding the determination of certain pension liabilities and corrections to holiday leave policies for U.S. personal services contractors were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—defined by the potential to 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 2021 has issued one significant proposed rule and two significant final rules.

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 2019, 2018, and 2017: Changes to the Federal Register

Click here to find yearly information about additions to the Federal Register from 1936 to 2018: Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2018



Four new Kentucky bills would limit the governor’s emergency powers

On Jan. 7, the Kentucky State House and Senate passed four pieces of legislation aimed at limiting the emergency powers of the state governor.  

The first bill, House Bill 1, would allow any businesses, schools, or associations to remain open as long as their operating plans meet or exceed guidance issued by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bill aims to override restrictions placed on businesses and other groups by Governor Beshear (D) in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It passed in the House with 70 votes in favor and 25 opposed.

The second bill, House Bill 5, would limit the authority of the governor to temporarily reorganize administrative agencies and transfer personnel without legislative approval. It passed in the House with 73 votes in favor and 22 opposed.

The third bill, Senate Bill 1, would limit the power of the governor during states of emergency. The bill would sunset after 30 days executive orders issued by the governor related to restrictions on in-person meetings and the functioning of schools, businesses, and churches unless the legislature approves an extension. The bill also allows the state legislature to terminate declarations of emergency at any time. It passed in the Senate with 27 votes in favor and nine opposed.

The final bill, Senate Bill 2, would make it more difficult for the governor to direct state administrative agencies to make emergency regulations without justifying the emergency nature of the situation. The bill defines an emergency situation and requires agencies to demonstrate such emergencies with documentary evidence to receive approval for new regulations from the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee. It passed in the Senate with 31 votes in favor and six opposed. 

The General Assembly may override a possible gubernatorial veto with a majority vote in both houses.

To learn more about state responses to the administrative state or the COVID-19 pandemic, see here:

Additional reading:

Text of House Bill 1:

Text of House Bill 5:

Text of Senate Bill 1:

Text of Senate Bill 2:

News report about the bills:

Kentucky legislative procedure:



Federal Register weekly update: 2020 year-to-date total of 84,198 pages

Banner with the words "The Administrative State Project"

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 December 21 to December 25, the Federal Register grew by 1,328 pages for a year-to-date total of 84,198 pages. Over the same period in 2019 and 2018, the Federal Register reached 71,734 pages and 67,676 pages, respectively. As of December 25, the 2020 total led the 2019 total by 12,464 pages and the 2018 total by 16,522 pages. 

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

Last week’s Federal Register featured the following 444 documents:

  • 361 notices
  • four presidential documents
  • 26 proposed rules
  • 53 final rules

One proposed rule regarding railroad safety and two final rules concerning the Farm Credit Administration’s repeal of certain amortization limits and the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to streamline reporting procedures under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—defined by the potential to 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 34 significant proposed rules, 73 significant final rules, and one significant notice as of December 25.

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 2019, 2018, and 2017.

Additional reading:



New bill would require GAO to send Congress a report on major midnight regulations

On December 14, Representative Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) introduced the Midnight Regulations Review Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to send Congress a report about major regulations made by outgoing presidents just before the transition to a new administration.

The bill defines major rules as those that would have an annual economic effect of $100,000,000 or more, would cause major cost increases for consumers, industries, or government agencies, or would have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or trade.

The bill requires the GAO to send the report to Congress within five weeks after a new president has been inaugurated. The report must identify any new major rules that Congress could block using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). 

Under the CRA, Congress has a chance to review and reject any new regulatory rules created by federal administrative agencies. Since the law’s creation in 1996, Congress has used it to repeal 17 out of the over 90,767 rules published in the Federal Register during that time. Congress blocked 16 of those rules at the beginning of the Trump administration as it reviewed rules made by agencies at the end of the Obama administration.

Debates about midnight rulemaking or midnight regulations refer to the informal rules that federal agencies adopt at the end of presidential administrations. Scholars have found that since 1948 agencies have made rules at a higher rate between election day in November and inauguration day the following January. Concerns about the quality of midnight regulations have led presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan (R), to issue regulatory freezes at the beginning of their administrations.

Connolly’s bill had four Democratic party cosponsors as of December 18: Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Raja Krishamoorthi (Ill.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.).

Additional reading:



Office of Personnel Management continues implementation of Trump’s civil service executive orders

Banner with the words "The Administrative State Project"

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on December 17 issued a proposed rule aimed at continuing the implementation of President Donald Trump’s (R) 2018 civil service executive orders. 

The proposed rule prioritizes federal employee performance over length of service in decisions concerning a reduction in force—a principle set forth in Executive Order 13839, “Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with Merit Systems and Principles.” 

E.O 13839 is one of three executive orders issued by President Trump on May 25, 2018, aimed at improving efficiency and accountability within the federal civil service. E.O. 13839 seeks to advance agency supervisors’ ability to support accountability within the federal civil service while protecting the procedural rights of federal employees. The order proposed several principles, management tactics, and reporting procedures for agency supervisors to incorporate in order to address issues of employee accountability.

The proposed rule is the latest in OPM’s attempts to implement the civil service executive orders. OPM previously implemented provisions of the executive orders in September 2019 and October 2020. 

Supporters of E.O. 13839 have argued that the order will improve the federal civil service by allowing agency supervisors to more efficiently address poor performance and misconduct in the workforce. Opponents of the order, including federal employee labor unions, have argued that the management changes are unnecessary and might fail to bring about the stated goal of improved employee performance.

The proposed rule is open to public comment for 30 days.

Additional reading:



Florida Administrative Commission appoints new chief administrative law judge

On December 15, the Florida Administrative Commission, composed of the governor and cabinet, appointed Pete Antonacci to serve as chief administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

As chief administrative law judge, Antonacci will manage 31 administrative law judges within the DOAH as they oversee challenges to state agency rules. 

State ALJ operations vary by state. While some states mirror the federal ALJ structure by allowing state agencies to maintain a roster of state ALJs, 28 states, including Florida, operate a central panel of ALJs who are assigned to agencies as needed. 

Additional reading:



A Federal agency proposal to sunset regulations

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 a federal agency’s proposal to sunset its regulations; an Appointments Clause challenge to administrative law judges at the Social Security Administration; new policies at a federal agency aimed at minimizing redundant regulations and improving regulatory transparency; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s rejection of certain deference practices. 

At the state level, we examine voters’ rejection of a Nevada ballot measure aimed at increasing legislative control of a state agency and the uncertain future of state COVID-related religious gathering restrictions. 

We also highlight new commentary examining midnight regulations and new findings from Ballotpedia’s survey of all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedure acts examining states that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication. As always, we wrap up with our Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 172 proposed rules and 283 final rules added to the Federal Register in November and OIRA’s regulatory review activity.


In Washington

Federal agency proposes to sunset regulations

  • What’s the story? The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on November 4 published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would sunset all of the agency’s regulations. The sunset process would set a 10-year expiration date for each agency rule, with certain exceptions, unless the agency conducts a retrospective review to keep the rule in effect.
  • HHS estimates that the agency would review 2,200 rules in the first two years if the proposed rule is finalized. In each following year, the agency estimates that it would conduct ongoing reviews of about 125 rules.
  • “This is the biggest regulatory reform effort in the biggest regulatory agency,” HHS Chief of Staff Brian Harrison told reporters. “We’re proposing a rule that will require regular review of regulations to ensure that they’re up to date and delivering the promised benefits.”
  • Opponents of the proposal argue in part that retrospective review would burden coronavirus-focused agency staff. “If the staff working to crush the virus has to be diverted to justify and spend time dealing with regulations they would not want to sunset, it’s a question of staff time that takes away from our ability to actually deal with the virus,” said Representative Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)
  • Many state agency regulations are already subject to sunset provisions. A Ballotpedia survey of all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APA) found that 11 state APAs include sunset provisions for most administrative rules, while Arizona and Vermont have sunset provisions that kick in under certain circumstances.
  • The proposed rule is open to public comment through January 4, 2021. 
  • Want to go deeper?

U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Appointments Clause challenge to Social Security Administration adjudicators

  • What’s the story? The U.S. Supreme Court on November 9 agreed to hear Carr v. Saul, a case concerning the president’s appointment and removal power and whether  Appointments Clause challenges must first be raised during administrative proceedings prior to review by an Article III court.
  • The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied Willie Carr’s application for Social Security disability benefits and rejected his appeals. While his appeal in federal court was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which the court held that administrative law judges (ALJs) working for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were improperly appointed. 
  • Carr amended his federal appeal to also argue that the SSA ALJ who decided his benefits case was improperly appointed. 
  • A district court in Oklahoma ruled in Carr’s favor, but the 10th Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, arguing that Carr could not raise the Appointments Clause challenge for the first time in federal court without previously presenting the challenge during the SSA’s administrative proceedings.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case will clarify whether judicial review requires challenges to first be raised during administrative proceedings.
  • Want to go deeper?

New federal agency policies aim to minimize redundant regulations and increase rulemaking transparency

  • What’s the story? The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on November 24 issued guidance that establishes rulemaking policies aimed at minimizing redundant regulations and increasing transparency in agency rulemaking. 
  • The first policy aims to minimize redundancies in HHS rulemaking by requiring the agency to ensure that new rules are consistent with, and do not overlap with, current agency regulations.
  • The second policy aims to increase transparency in agency rulemaking by requiring that HHS make public any data underlying its policy analyses that would allow a third party to replicate its work, to the extent permitted by law. These data include working papers, calculations, models, references, and other information.
  • “We are providing needed transparency by requiring the Department to show its math so the American people can know and challenge the methods government uses to calculate effects of regulations it imposes on them,” said HHS Chief of Staff Brian Harrison in a press release.
  • Opponents of the public data policy argue that the change results in limiting agency discretion. 
  • Want to go deeper?

Third Circuit rejects judicial deference to agency commentary that expanded sentencing guidelines

  • What’s the story? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 1 ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Malik Nasir that courts should reject judicial deference to United States Sentencing Commission commentary that expands federal sentencing guidelines. 
  • The case concerns the marijuana conviction of Malik Nasir and the decision to sentence him as a career offender using definitions found in agency commentary about federal sentencing guidelines.
  • Judge Kent Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, delivered the majority opinion, which overturned Nasir’s original sentence. Jordan disagreed with the Third Circuit precedent giving binding judicial deference to agency commentary expanding the scope of regulations.
  • Jordan cited Kisor V. Wilkie, a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations (Auer deference). Post-Kisor, Jordan argued that courts should only defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations when there is genuine ambiguity about the regulatory meaning. He argued that agency commentary cannot expand the scope of the sentencing guidelines established through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
  • Jordan wrote, “If we accept that the commentary can do more than interpret the guidelines, that it can add to their scope, we allow circumvention of the checks Congress put on the Sentencing Commission, a body that exercises considerable authority in setting rules that can deprive citizens of their liberty.”
  • Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Donald Trump appointee, agreed with the majority’s rejection of deference in the case and wrote a concurring opinion arguing that courts should interpret ambiguities in federal sentencing guidelines in favor of defendants. He wrote, “Courts play a vital role in safeguarding liberty and checking punishment. … [A]s Kisor teaches, instead of deferring to the commentary the moment ambiguity arises, judges must first exhaust our legal toolkit.”
  • Want to go deeper?

In the states

Nevada voters reject ballot measure that would have increased legislative control over state agency 

  • What’s the story? Nevada voters on November 3 voted 50.15% to 49.85% not to adopt Nevada Question 1, a ballot measure that would have given the state legislature more control over the Nevada State Board of Regents. The Board of Regents is an elected executive agency that manages Nevada’s higher education system.
  • According to the 2017 legislation that introduced the ballot measure, the Board of Regents “has, at various times, relied on its constitutional status and its authority to control and manage the affairs of the State University as a defensive shield and cloak against the people’s legislative check of accountability.” The legislation further argued that the board has acted at times to undermine the state legislature’s oversight of the Nevada System of Higher Education.
  • The ballot measure would have removed references to the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution to ensure that the agency only operates via authority derived from statutes passed by the legislature.
  • State Assemblyman Jim Wheeler (R), a supporter of the measure, argued, “Question 1 simply makes the Board of Regents a statutory body, subject to checks and balances—an important American principle.” 
  • Board of Regents Member Laura E. Perkins, an opponent of the measure, argued, “There’s no numbers or positive proof that the system that may or may not come out of this is better than the system that we have now.”
  • Want to go deeper?

State COVID-related religious gathering restrictions in jeopardy after SCOTUS ruling

  • What’s the story? Coronavirus-related restrictions on religious gatherings in the states face an uncertain future after the United States Supreme Court temporarily blocked such restrictions in New York and referred a case challenging similar restrictions in California back to a lower court.
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) set attendance limits on houses of worship in coronavirus hot spots designated as red and orange zones.
  • The court on November 25 held 5-4 in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew Cuomo that the New York governor’s caps on the size of religious gatherings in red and orange zones violated the first Amendment. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas sided with the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer dissented.
  • “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” wrote the majority in an unsigned opinion.
  • In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch argued, “It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”
  • Justice Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justice Kagan, argued that the court is playing “a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.
  • The court on December 3 referred a case challenging similar restrictions in California back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, instructing the appeals court to remand the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of the New York decision.
  • Want to go deeper?

____________________________________________________________________________

The Midnight Regulation Phenomenon

Susan Dudley, Director of The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, published recent commentary that examines the phenomenon of midnight rulemaking— informal rules that federal agencies adopt at the end of a presidential administration. 

Midnight regulations take their name from Cinderella, according to Boston University School of Law professor Jack Beermann. The ticking clock of a pending leadership change, reminiscent of Cinderella’s magic disappearing at midnight, encourages executive agencies to accomplish as much of their regulatory agendas as possible before time runs out.

Dudley’s commentary highlights the following findings by George Washington University scholars regarding midnight regulations:

  • “Sofie Miller and Daniel Perez found that presidents issue about three times as many regulations in their post-election quarter as they do in their earlier years in office. This holds regardless of party, and there is little reason to expect the Trump administration will behave differently than previous administrations.”
  • “Jerry Ellig and coauthors have found that regulations issued during the midnight quarter tend to be supported by lower quality regulatory impact analysis. These hurried regulations may be motivated by a desire to achieve policies that might not have survived the checks and balances that restrain actions during normal periods, or to hamstring incoming officials with different policy goals.”
  • Want to go deeper

Ballotpedia study finds that two states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies in adjudication

A Ballotpedia survey of all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedure acts (APAs) concluded that two states have APAs with provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication, as of November 2020. 

  • Two states have APAs with provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication.
  • 48 states have APAs and constitutions that do not appear to place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication.

Ballotpedia also examined state APAs and constitutions that permit lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings. View those results here.

  • Want to go deeper? 

Regulatory tally

Federal Register

  • The Federal Register in November reached 76,948  pages. The number of pages at the end of each November during the Obama administration (2009-2016) averaged 73,485 pages.
  • The November Federal Register included 172 proposed rules and 283 final rules. These included new life expectancy tables from the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s removal of the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and amendments to the organization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, among other rules.
  • Want to go deeper? 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

OIRA’s November regulatory review activity includes:

  • Review of 57 significant regulatory actions. Between 2009-2016, the Obama administration reviewed an average of 47 significant regulatory actions each November.
  • Five rules approved without changes; recommended changes to 50 proposed rules; two rules withdrawn.
  • As of December 1, 2020, OIRA’s website listed 147 regulatory actions under review.
  • Want to go deeper? 


New federal agency policies aim to minimize redundant regulations and increase rulemaking transparency

Banner with the words "The Administrative State Project"

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on November 24 issued guidance that establishes rulemaking policies aimed at minimizing redundant regulations and increasing transparency in agency rulemaking.

The first policy aims to minimize redundancies in HHS rulemaking by requiring the agency to ensure that new rules are consistent with, and do not overlap with, current agency regulations.

The second policy aims to increase transparency in agency rulemaking by requiring that HHS make public any data underlying its policy analyses that would allow a third party to replicate its work, to the extent permitted by law. These data include working papers, calculations, models, references, and other information.

“We are providing needed transparency by requiring the Department to show its math so the American people can know and challenge the methods government uses to calculate effects of regulations it imposes on them,” said HHS Chief of Staff Brian Harrison in a press release.

Opponents of the public data policy argue that the change results in limiting agency discretion. 

Additional reading:



U.S. Senate confirms three to Federal Election Commission

Graphic with the five pillars of the

The new commissioners are Shana Broussard (D), Allen Dickerson (R), and Sean Cooksey (R). They join current commissioners James “Trey” Trainor (R), Steven T. Walther (I), and Ellen L. Weintraub (D). Trainor chairs the commission, and Walther is vice chair. 

Broussard previously served as counsel to now fellow commissioner Walther, while Dickerson was the legal director of the Institute of Free Speech and Cooksey the general counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Broussard is also the first person of color to serve as commissioner.

Congress created the FEC as an independent regulatory agency in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Elections Campaign Act. It is responsible for disclosing campaign finance information, enforcing limits and prohibitions on contributions, and overseeing the public funding of presidential elections.

The president appoints commissioners who serve six-year terms, with two seats up for appointment every two years. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, no more than three members can be of the same political party, and there is a four-vote minimum for any proposal to be passed. Chairs of the commission serve one-year terms and are limited to one term as chair during their tenure. 

The FEC is one of 88 administrative state agencies tracked by Ballotpedia. The administrative state is a term used to describe the phenomenon of executive branch administrative agencies exercising the power to create, adjudicate, and enforce their own rules. Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Project is an encyclopedic overview of the administrative state. It includes information about the administrative and regulatory activities of the United States government. It also covers concepts, laws, court cases, executive orders, scholarly work, and other material related to the administrative state. 

Additional reading: 



Bitnami