Executive Orders on deregulation (Trump era)
Executive Orders on Deregulation (Trump Era)
Background: Deregulation Focus in the Trump Administration
One hallmark of the Trump administration (2017–2021) was an aggressive push to reduce federal regulations, aiming to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and promote economic growth.
Several executive orders (EOs) were issued to limit, repeal, or streamline regulations.
These EOs altered how federal agencies approached rulemaking, cost-benefit analysis, and regulatory review.
The administrative law impact was significant, raising issues about agency discretion, procedural compliance, and judicial review.
Key Executive Orders on Deregulation
1. Executive Order 13771 (Jan 30, 2017): “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”
Required agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new one introduced (a “two-for-one” rule).
Agencies had to ensure the total incremental cost of new regulations was no greater than zero.
Aimed to control regulatory costs and promote deregulation.
2. Executive Order 13777 (Feb 24, 2017): “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”
Established Regulatory Reform Officers in agencies to identify “outdated, unnecessary, or excessively burdensome” regulations for repeal or modification.
Emphasized agency accountability in regulatory reform.
3. Executive Order 13783 (March 28, 2017): “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth”
Directed agencies to review and potentially rescind environmental regulations deemed to inhibit energy production, like the Clean Power Plan.
Litigation and Case Law Illustrating Deregulation Efforts
1. State of California v. Trump (2017) — Challenge to EO 13768 and related regulatory actions
Facts: California and other states challenged Trump administration actions—including EO-related deregulation efforts—that they argued undermined environmental protections and states’ rights.
Issue: Whether executive actions unlawfully interfered with environmental regulations and violated statutory mandates.
Holding: Courts issued injunctions against rollback efforts that lacked adequate administrative procedure compliance, such as the rescission of the Clean Power Plan.
Significance: Demonstrated that EOs cannot override statutory requirements or procedural protections.
Deregulation Impact: Agencies must comply with APA rulemaking procedures even when deregulating.
2. Sierra Club v. EPA (2020) — Challenge to EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule replacing the Clean Power Plan
Facts: After EO 13783, EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the ACE Rule, significantly weakening emission standards.
Issue: Whether the ACE Rule complied with the Clean Air Act and administrative law standards.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s ACE Rule for being arbitrary and capricious, emphasizing failure to consider environmental consequences.
Significance: Courts require reasoned explanation and evidence-based decision-making even in deregulatory efforts.
Deregulation Impact: Agencies cannot simply repeal regulations based on political preferences; they must justify actions with substantial evidence.
3. New York v. EPA (2021) — Challenge to EPA’s repeal of methane regulations
Facts: EPA repealed Obama-era methane emission standards, citing EO 13783.
Issue: Whether EPA’s repeal complied with the Clean Air Act and APA.
Holding: Court vacated repeal for failing to consider environmental harms adequately.
Significance: Reinforced that deregulatory EOs do not excuse compliance with statutory mandates.
Deregulation Impact: Judicial scrutiny remains robust in deregulation cases affecting public health.
4. Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2020)
Facts: Coalition challenged EPA’s deregulatory efforts undermining climate change regulations.
Issue: Whether EPA’s rollback of greenhouse gas regulations was lawful.
Holding: Courts emphasized EPA must balance economic and environmental considerations but cannot ignore statutory requirements.
Significance: Limits on agency discretion despite deregulatory EO pressure.
Deregulation Impact: Agencies must adhere to the statutory purpose despite deregulatory agendas.
5. California v. Trump (2019) — Challenge to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP)
Facts: States challenged EPA’s repeal of CPP.
Issue: Whether EPA’s actions followed APA procedures.
Holding: Court blocked repeal due to insufficient explanation and procedural shortcomings.
Significance: Highlights that EOs encouraging deregulation do not override APA procedural safeguards.
Deregulation Impact: Agencies must provide clear, reasoned explanations in deregulation.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Holding & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| California v. Trump (2017) | Limits on deregulation via EOs | EOs cannot override APA or statutory requirements |
| Sierra Club v. EPA (2020) | EPA’s replacement of Clean Power Plan | Courts require reasoned, evidence-based deregulation |
| New York v. EPA (2021) | Repeal of methane standards | Repeal vacated for inadequate environmental review |
| Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2020) | EPA climate rollback challenge | Agencies must balance statutory duties and deregulation |
| California v. Trump (2019) | Procedural compliance in deregulation | Agencies must follow APA procedural safeguards |
Conclusion
The Trump-era executive orders on deregulation dramatically shifted the federal regulatory landscape by emphasizing cost reduction and limiting regulatory growth. However:
Courts consistently held agencies accountable to statutory mandates and APA procedures, ensuring that deregulation is not arbitrary.
Agencies must provide reasoned justifications for deregulation and cannot simply rely on executive orders to bypass legal requirements.
Judicial review remains a critical check on executive-driven deregulation efforts.
This balance reflects the core administrative law principle that executive policy initiatives must operate within the bounds of law and fair procedure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments