14 STATES ASK DC DISTRICT COURT TO UPHOLD TRUMP’S 2-FOR-1 ORDER
May 5, 2017
Public interest groups and other organizations have filed suit to stop a Trump Administration executive order which, starting in 2018, calls on the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to give each agency a budget for how much it can increase regulatory costs or cut regulatory costs. The President has advertised the “Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” as requiring agencies to abolish two existing rules for every new one that is imposed. Public interest groups argue that the order and guidance from OMB failed to take into account the benefits of any new rules. Additionally, their lawsuit states that the order would force agencies to arbitrarily scrap existing rules to meet the cost cap set by the OMB and that requiring executive agencies to consider the costs of rulemaking conflicts with the principle of separation of powers.
On April 17, 2017 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming moved to support the executive order. These states support the measure because it is likely to lessen the regulatory burden on the states and their residents. According to their amicus brief on behalf of the White House, submitted to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, between 2010 and 2015 the federal government averaged 57 significant regulations per year. The states argue that in 2012 alone, regulations cost businesses and individuals an estimated $2.028 trillion in compliance costs.
These states disagree with the interest groups and note that other presidents have issued executive orders directing federal agencies to consider factors when exercising discretion in regards to regulation. The states believe that there has been unnecessary growth in federal regulations and it has had a deleterious effect on the states and their citizens. The states argue that the one in, two out concept would help to solve this long term problem.
The case is Public Citizen Inc. et al. v. Donald Trump et al, case number 1:17-cv-00253, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com, 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com, 202-659-6665).
Share This Post
Authors
