Rollback of administrative rules
🔍 What Is a Rollback of Administrative Rules?
A rollback of administrative rules occurs when a regulatory agency reverses, repeals, or weakens an existing rule or regulation. Rollbacks are common during transitions between presidential administrations (e.g., from a pro-regulation to a deregulatory agenda), but agencies cannot repeal rules arbitrarily. They must follow legal and procedural requirements, including:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Statutory authority
Judicial review standards (e.g., arbitrary and capricious test)
Even if an agency has the same authority to repeal a rule as to create it, courts require a reasoned explanation, often including analysis of reliance interests, factual changes, and policy justifications.
⚖️ Key Legal Standards
APA Section 553 – Governs notice-and-comment rulemaking.
APA Section 706 – Courts can set aside agency actions that are:
Arbitrary
Capricious
An abuse of discretion
Not in accordance with law
State Farm Doctrine – From Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm (1983)
🧑⚖️ Key U.S. Supreme & Appellate Court Cases on Rule Rollbacks
1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983)
463 U.S. 29
Facts: The Reagan administration's DOT rescinded a Carter-era rule requiring passive restraints (e.g., airbags) in cars.
Issue: Did the agency provide sufficient justification for rolling back the rule?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious.
Significance:
Set the modern standard for evaluating rollbacks.
Agencies must examine relevant data and provide a reasoned explanation.
A change in administration does not justify ignoring prior findings.
2. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)
556 U.S. 502
Facts: The FCC changed its indecency policy, punishing fleeting expletives it previously tolerated.
Issue: Was the FCC’s policy change arbitrary or capricious under the APA?
Holding: The Court upheld the FCC's change, holding that agencies can change policies if they provide a reasoned explanation.
Significance:
Clarified that agencies can reverse prior policies, even without a change in facts.
But must acknowledge the change, justify it, and consider reliance interests.
Differentiates lawful rollbacks from arbitrary reversals.
3. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020)
591 U.S. ___
Facts: The Trump administration attempted to end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program.
Issue: Was the rescission of DACA lawful under the APA?
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to consider reliance interests.
Significance:
Reinforced State Farm principles.
Agencies must consider how affected individuals have structured their lives around existing rules.
A procedural failure in rollback can invalidate even a substantively legal policy shift.
4. California v. Bernhardt (N.D. Cal. 2020)
(BLM Methane Rule Case)
Facts: The Trump administration's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repealed an Obama-era rule that regulated methane emissions from oil and gas drilling.
Issue: Was the rollback consistent with the APA and environmental statutes?
Holding: The court struck down the rollback as arbitrary and capricious.
Significance:
Showed how deregulatory rollbacks can be blocked if they ignore scientific evidence or public interest.
Emphasized that policy preferences must be supported by rational analysis.
5. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (D.C. Cir. 2017)
862 F.3d 1
Facts: The EPA tried to delay enforcement of methane regulations without formal rulemaking.
Issue: Was the delay a rule rollback requiring APA procedures?
Holding: Yes. The delay was a substantive rule change, not just a procedural pause.
Significance:
Agencies cannot evade APA rulemaking requirements by disguising rollbacks as delays or suspensions.
Reinforces the formality and transparency required in reversing rules.
6. New York v. U.S. Department of Labor (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
(Association Health Plans Rule)
Facts: DOL expanded the definition of "employer" to allow more groups to form Association Health Plans, rolling back Affordable Care Act protections.
Issue: Was the new rule consistent with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)?
Holding: The court invalidated the rule, stating it exceeded statutory authority.
Significance:
Highlights how rule rollbacks must remain within statutory boundaries.
A rollback cannot be used to circumvent Congressional intent.
🔁 Summary of Rollback Principles
| Case | Key Issue | Court’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| State Farm (1983) | Rescission of auto safety rule | Must provide reasoned explanation; rollback struck down |
| FCC v. Fox (2009) | Policy change on indecency | Allowed; explained and justified change upheld |
| DHS v. Regents (2020) | Ending DACA | Arbitrary due to failure to consider reliance interests |
| California v. Bernhardt (2020) | Methane rule rollback | Invalidated as arbitrary and capricious |
| Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (2017) | Delay as rollback | Delay = substantive rule; APA procedures required |
| NY v. DOL (2019) | Rule change affecting health insurance | Exceeded statutory authority; rollback unlawful |
🎯 Key Takeaways
Agencies can change or repeal prior rules, but they must:
Provide a reasoned explanation.
Consider reliance interests.
Follow APA procedures (notice-and-comment).
Stay within statutory authority.
Acknowledge and explain any change in policy or facts.
Courts closely scrutinize rollbacks, especially when:
The prior rule involved extensive fact-finding.
The rollback ignores evidence or shifts policy abruptly.
Affected parties have relied on the existing rule.
Changes in administration do not justify rule reversals alone — policy shifts must still meet legal and procedural standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments