Noteworthy state approaches to address the administrative state
| Administrative State |
|---|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Nondelegation • Judicial deference • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
- See also: State responses to judicial deference
State governments have taken a variety of actions that impact the administrative state at the state level. These actions may address aspects of the regulatory process—such as rulemaking and regulatory review—or judicial deference. Below are a selection of noteworthy responses to administrative practices made by state governments.
Regulation
- See also: Rulemaking
States have taken a variety of actions to address state-level regulatory processes. These changes may impact rulemaking—a process that enables administrative agencies to amend, repeal, or create an administrative regulation. The following actions by state governments aim to address certain areas of the regulatory process at the state level:
- Virginia governor establishes new regulatory agency, cost-benefit analysis standards (2022)
- Ohio law calls for regulatory reduction (2022)
- Arizona governor issues nation’s first 3-for-1 regulatory policy, renews moritorium (2020)
- Oklahoma governor issues executive order to cut regulations (2020)
- Texas governor directs state agencies to reduce occupational licensing requirements (2019)
- Ohio budget institutes 2-for-1 regulatory requirements (2019)
- Idaho legislature repeals entire regulatory code (2019)
- Arizona becomes the first state to recognize out-of-state occupational licenses (2019)
- New Jersey governor establishes new regulatory principles (2019)
- Idaho governor targets regulatory costs with two executive orders (2019)
- Wisconsin Legislature codifies end to judicial deference and approves changes to state administrative processes (2018)
Regulatory freezes
- Iowa governor calls for rulemaking pause, regulatory review (2023)
- Tennessee governor issues 90-day regulatory freeze (2019)
- Arizona governor renews moratorium on new state regulations (2019)
Regulatory review
- See also: Regulatory review
Regulatory review refers to processes used by government entities to oversee the rules, regulations, and other policies issued by administrative agencies. Regulatory review may involve an examination of the content or effect of a rule, its estimated economic costs and benefits, or the adherence of the rule and the rulemaking agency to procedural requirements. The following actions by state governments aim to address regulatory review at the state level.
- Kansas enacts state-level REINS Act (2024)
- Idaho lawmakers modify approach to review of administrative rules (2023)
- North Carolina requires legislative review for new agency rules with criminal penalties (2019)
- Oklahoma governor issues executive order strengthening regulatory oversight (2019)
- New Mexico governor signs executive order requiring impact analyses for administrative regulations (2018)
Separation of powers
- See also: Separation of powers
Separation of powers refers to a system of government that distributes its powers and functions among separate and independent entities. Like the federal government, all state governments are divided into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The state constitutions assign distinct powers and responsibilities to each branch. The separation of powers is sometimes referred to as a system of checks and balances because each branch exercises certain powers over the other two branches.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Judicial deference
- See also: State responses to judicial deference
State-level approaches to judicial deference vary significantly. State courts are not obliged to exercise federal deference doctrines, such as Chevron deferenece, to defer to state-level administrative agencies. Thirty-six states, however, have implemented forms of judicial deference to state administrative agencies similar to the federal deference doctrines.[7] Other states have taken action to limit deference practices. The following list features selected responses to judicial deference made by state governments:
- Idaho lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)
- Nebraska lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)
- Indiana lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2024)
- Ohio Supreme Court rejects Auer deference (2023)
- Ohio Supreme Court limits Chevron deference (2023)
- Tennessee lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2022)
- Colorado Supreme Court narrows state deference practices (2021)
- Mississippi Supreme Court rejects state-level Auer deference, ends judicial deference in state (2021)
- Georgia lawmakers approve limits on judicial deference in tax cases (2021)
- Arkansas Supreme Court ends Chevron deference (2020)
- Wisconsin Legislature ends Chevron deference, codifies Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling (2018)
- Florida voters approve ballot measure prohibiting judicial deference (2018)
- Mississippi Supreme Court ends state-level Chevron deference (2018)
- Arizona lawmakers end judicial deference practices (2018)
- Michigan Supreme Court ends Chevron deference (2008)
See also
- Search Google News for this topic
- Chevron deference
- Rulemaking
- Regulatory review
- Supreme Court of the United States
Footnotes
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Separation of powers," accessed September 20, 2017
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Separation of Powers - An Overview," accessed September 21, 2017
- ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat," April 2, 2014
- ↑ US Legal, "Separation of Powers Law and Legal Definition," accessed September 20, 2017
- ↑ Dictionary.com, "Separation of powers," accessed September 25, 2017
- ↑ The White House, "State & Local Government," accessed February 25, 2019
- ↑ National Review, "Stop Deferring to Rule by Bureaucrats," April 2, 2019
| |||||||||||