'Good Cause' Is Cause for Concern

James Yates
{"title":"'Good Cause' Is Cause for Concern","authors":"James Yates","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3089469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Presidential transitions routinely engage in elaborate games of “administrative ping-pong.” The outgoing administration rushes to promulgate rules that align with its party before leaving office — known as midnight rules. Successors quickly attempt to unwind those rules and policies, only to adopt their predecessor’s strategy and rush to promulgate rules before the end of their term. Both pass on an administrative state stuffed with last-minute rules and no good way to undo them, metaphorically hitting the ball back over the net. This game, while comical in theory, is controversial in practice. And it is even more controversial when “major” rules are involved. \nPresident Obama’s administration promulgated over 3,600 rules in 2016 — a nearly 13% increase over 2015. 118 of these rules were “major” rules with an economic impact of at least $100,000,000. Many rules, major or nonmajor, were promulgated without using the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice and comment (N&C) requirements. And many were “midnight rules” promulgated in Obama’s final months. One popular justification for exempting rules from N&C during Obama’s presidency was the “good cause” exception. \nPresident Trump is now tasked with recalibrating the administrative state to fit his policy goals. Upon taking office, Trump’s chief of staff issued a memorandum to all executive agencies requesting that they delay or revoke various regulations. The D.C. Circuit shined a light on Trump’s delay efforts when it struck down an EPA stay of an Obama-era regulation. Trump is now simultaneously instructing his agencies to adhere to the APA’s procedures and delaying rules by means familiar to his predecessor: the good cause exception. Along with the D.C. Circuit’s decision, this application of good cause has triggered a needed review of the exception and its use to excuse major and nonmajor rules from N&C. \nThis Essay argues that the risk of foregoing prepromulgation N&C is simply too great when dealing with major rules. Major rules are singled out for increased oversight and as such deserve the full extent of available procedures.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3089469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Presidential transitions routinely engage in elaborate games of “administrative ping-pong.” The outgoing administration rushes to promulgate rules that align with its party before leaving office — known as midnight rules. Successors quickly attempt to unwind those rules and policies, only to adopt their predecessor’s strategy and rush to promulgate rules before the end of their term. Both pass on an administrative state stuffed with last-minute rules and no good way to undo them, metaphorically hitting the ball back over the net. This game, while comical in theory, is controversial in practice. And it is even more controversial when “major” rules are involved. President Obama’s administration promulgated over 3,600 rules in 2016 — a nearly 13% increase over 2015. 118 of these rules were “major” rules with an economic impact of at least $100,000,000. Many rules, major or nonmajor, were promulgated without using the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice and comment (N&C) requirements. And many were “midnight rules” promulgated in Obama’s final months. One popular justification for exempting rules from N&C during Obama’s presidency was the “good cause” exception. President Trump is now tasked with recalibrating the administrative state to fit his policy goals. Upon taking office, Trump’s chief of staff issued a memorandum to all executive agencies requesting that they delay or revoke various regulations. The D.C. Circuit shined a light on Trump’s delay efforts when it struck down an EPA stay of an Obama-era regulation. Trump is now simultaneously instructing his agencies to adhere to the APA’s procedures and delaying rules by means familiar to his predecessor: the good cause exception. Along with the D.C. Circuit’s decision, this application of good cause has triggered a needed review of the exception and its use to excuse major and nonmajor rules from N&C. This Essay argues that the risk of foregoing prepromulgation N&C is simply too great when dealing with major rules. Major rules are singled out for increased oversight and as such deserve the full extent of available procedures.
“好理由”是值得关注的理由
总统换届通常会进行精心设计的“行政乒乓”游戏。即将离任的政府急于在离任前颁布与党派一致的规则,即所谓的午夜规则。继任者迅速试图放松这些规定和政策,结果却采取了前任的策略,在任期结束前匆忙颁布规定。他们都放弃了一个充斥着最后一刻规则的行政状态,没有好办法撤销它们,就像把球打回网外一样。这个游戏虽然在理论上是滑稽的,但在实践中是有争议的。当涉及到“主要”规则时,争议就更大了。奥巴马政府在2016年颁布了3600多条规定,比2015年增加了近13%。其中118条是“主要”规则,其经济影响至少为1亿美元。许多重大或非重大规则的颁布都没有使用《行政程序法》(APA)的通知和评论(N&C)要求。其中许多是奥巴马任期最后几个月颁布的“午夜规则”。在奥巴马总统任期内,免除N&C规则的一个流行理由是“正当理由”例外。特朗普总统现在的任务是重新调整行政状态,以适应他的政策目标。特朗普上任后,白宫办公厅主任向所有行政机构发出备忘录,要求他们推迟或撤销各种规定。华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院否决了美国环境保护署暂缓执行奥巴马时代的一项规定,这让特朗普的拖延努力暴露无遗。特朗普现在同时指示他的机构遵守APA的程序,并通过与他的前任熟悉的方式推迟规则:正当理由例外。随着华盛顿特区巡回法院的决定,这一正当理由的应用引发了对例外及其用于免除N&C主要和非主要规则的必要审查。本文认为,在处理主要规则时,预先发布N&C的风险实在太大了。主要规则被挑出来加强监督,因此应充分利用现有程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信