REINS Act

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg


Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Nondelegation
•Nondelegation doctrine
• Timeline
• Court cases
• Arguments for and against
• Reform proposals
• Scholarly work
More pillars
• Judicial deference
• Executive control of agencies
• 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.

What is the REINS Act?
The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) is a legislative proposal to increase congressional oversight of federal agency rulemaking. It would require legislative approval of major agency rules—defined as those with an annual financial impact of $100 million or more—before such regulations can take effect. The REINS Act seeks to amend the existing Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to nullify certain regulations after implementation. The REINS Act would shift this process, requiring preemptive approval by Congress for major rules.[1][2]

Click here to learn more about state-level legislation modeled after the federal REINS Act. REINS-style state laws were effective in Florida (2010), Wisconsin (2017), Indiana (2024), and Kansas (2024) as of October 2024.

Why does it matter?
The REINS Act seeks to address the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch in administrative rulemaking, particularly concerning the nondelegation doctrine. If enacted, it would provide Congress with more direct control over major regulations with significant economic impacts by granting legislators the preemptive authority to halt the enactment of certain regulations, rather than relying on resolutions of disapproval after a rule takes effect.

What are the key arguments?
The REINS Act is part of a broader debate surrounding the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in relation to administrative rulemaking. Supporters argue that the legislation would restore the separation of powers, make Congress accountable for regulatory decisions, and increase transparency in the rulemaking process.

Conversely, opponents contend that the act could hinder the efficiency of regulatory agencies, delay necessary regulations, and undermine agencies' expertise in topics where Congress lacks detailed knowledge. They also argue that it would lead to increased political gridlock.

What's the background?
Versions of the REINS Act have been introduced as legislation in every Congress since 2009. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed several versions of the bill, but it has yet to gain approval in the Senate as of January 2025.

The bill was reintroduced in the second session of the 118th Congress with four additional provisions related to defense for individuals, the right to sue, the application of REINS provisions on agency guidance, and exemptions for deregulatory actions. The 2024 version of the bill proposed the first changes to the REINS Act in 15 years.

To track the progress of bills at the federal and state level with REINS-style provisions, view Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker.

Dive deeper
The article contains the following sections:

  • Background. This section includes background information about the REINS Act and the history of the legislation in Congress.
  • Timeline. This section includes a timeline of key dates regarding the REINS Act at the federal and state level.
  • Provisions. This section includes key provisions of the REINS Act and the full text of the bill.
  • Sponsors of the REINS Act. This section includes a list of cosponsors of the REINS Act from the 116th Congress, 117th Congress, and 118th Congress.
  • Arguments about the REINS Act. This section includes a selection of policy arguments supporting and opposing the REINS Act.
  • Attempts to achieve goals of the REINS Act in other legislation. This section includes information about federal legislation that attempted to achieve goals similar to the REINS Act.

Background

See also: Congressional Review Act
The REINS Act, explained

The REINS Act is designed to amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996. Under the CRA, Congress has the authority to issue resolutions of disapproval to nullify certain agency regulations that it considers to be harmful. The REINS Act aims to expand the CRA to require congressional approval of certain major agency regulations before those regulations are implemented. Rather than issuing resolutions of disapproval after a rule takes effect, the REINS Act seeks to give Congress the preemptive authority to halt the initial enactment of certain regulations.[2]

The REINS Act defines major agency regulations as those that have financial impacts on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more annually, increase consumer prices, or have significant harmful effects on the economy.[2]

In addition, the REINS Act would require Congress to examine all existing regulations that have financial impacts on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more.

History of the REINS Act in Congress

The REINS Act was initially designed by Tea Party activist Lloyd Rogers in 2009. Rogers contacted former U.S. Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) to propose legislation requiring that "all rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local government financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective."[3] The proposal was incorporated into the Republican Party's Pledge to America legislative agenda leading up to the 2010 election cycle, and the legislation was first introduced on October 8, 2009, by Davis in the 111th Congress (2009-2010).[4]

Versions of the REINS Act were later introduced as legislation in the 112th Congress (2011-2013), the 113th Congress (2013-2015), the 114th Congress (2015-2017) and the 115th Congress (2017-2019). The U.S. House of Representatives passed every version of the legislation between the 112th and 115th Congresses. The U.S. Senate, however, had not taken action on the legislation until the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed a version of the bill out of committee during the 115th Congress.[3][5][6][7][8]

The legislation was reintroduced during the 116th Congress (2019-2021) and the 117th Congress (2021-2022) but did not pass.[9] In July 2020, the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the REINS Act with a party-line vote of 8-5.[10]

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), joined by more than 170 Republican cosponsors, introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 277 in the 118th Congress (2023-2025) on January 11, 2023. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 221-210 on June 14, 2023, to pass the act.[11]

Cammack and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reintroduced the REINS Act in the second session of the 118th Congress on September 18, 2024, with four additional provisions. The 2024 reintroduction proposed the first changes to the legislation in 15 years. Click here to read more about the additional provisions.

Cammack reintroduced the REINS Act on January 3, 2025, in the 119th United States Congress. The 2025 version of the bill did not contain the new provisions introduced in 2024.[12]

Timeline

Click to expand the list below to view a timeline of key events related to the federal REINS Act and the enactment of REINS-style state laws. To track the progress of other bills at the federal and state level with REINS-style provisions, view Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker.

Provisions of the REINS Act

The REINS Act proposes the following procedures, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service:

“ The bill sets forth the congressional approval procedure for major rules and the congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules. Agencies are prohibited from allowing a major rule to take effect without the congressional review procedures set forth in this bill.[28][29] ”


The REINS Act proposes the following changes to provisions regarding congressional review of agency rulemaking:

“ The bill revises provisions relating to congressional review of agency rulemaking to require federal agencies promulgating rules to:
  1. identify and repeal or amend existing rules to completely offset any annual costs of new rules to the U.S. economy; and
  2. publish information about the rules in the Federal Register and include in their reports to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a classification of the rules as major or nonmajor rules and a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rules, including an analysis of any jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and private sector jobs.[28][29]
 ”


The REINS Act defines the following regulations as major rules:

“ A 'major rule' is any rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in:
  1. an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation);
  2. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
  3. significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.[28][29]
 ”

118th Congress second session (2024)

During the second session of the 118th United States Congress, Rep. Kat Cammack (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R) reintroduced the REINS Act with four additional provisions. The reintroduction proposed the first changes to the REINS Act since it was originally introduced in 2009. The full text of the new provisions can be read here.

Rep. Cammack published a press release on September 18, 2024, outlining the new provisions:[30]

“

The updated REINS Act includes the following changes:

  • New defense for individuals: Individuals can argue that the average person would not have known their actions violated federal law if the statute did not clearly state it
  • Right to sue: People can sue to stop the enforcement of a rule if an agency implements a rule without prior congressional approval
  • LIBERTY Act: Agency guidance with an economic impact of $100M or more needs congressional approval just like major rules
  • Deregulatory actions exempted: Agencies do not need congressional approval to withdraw costly or burdensome rules[29]
 ”


The 2025 version of the REINS Act did not contain the new provisions.[12]

Text of the bill

The full text of the REINS Act, introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) during the 119th Congress, is provided below:[12]

Sponsors of the REINS Act

119th Congress (2025-2026)

In the U.S. House of Representatives

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 142 in the 119th United States Congress (2025-2026) on January 3, 2025.[12]

The bill had 79 Republican cosponsors as of January 2025.[12]

118th Congress second session (2024-2025)

In the U.S. House of Representatives

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 9648 in the second session of the 118th United States Congress (2024-2025) on September 18, 2024. H.R. 9648 included four new provisions related to defense for individuals, the right to sue, the application of REINS provisions on agency guidance, and exemptions for deregulatory actions.[14]

The bill had five Republican cosponsors as of September 2024.[14]

In the U.S. Senate

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the REINS Act as S. 5082 in the second session of the 118th United States Congress (2024-2025) on September 18, 2024. S. 5082 included four new provisions related to defense for individuals, the right to sue, the application of REINS provisions on agency guidance, and exemptions for deregulatory actions.[13]

The bill had six Republican cosponsors as of September 2024.[13]

118th Congress first session (2023-2024)

In the U.S. House of Representatives

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 277 in the first session of the 118th Congress (2023-2024) on January 11, 2023. "The REINS Act is a core part of House Republicans' mission to reintroduce government accountability and to restore Congress' role to check the regulatory actions of federal agencies. I'm grateful to the overwhelming support of my colleagues on this bill and look forward to seeing it pass the House this Congress," said Cammack in a press release about the bill.[31]

The bill had 182 Republican cosponsors as of May 2023.[11]

In the U.S. Senate

The REINS Act of 2023 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate on January 31, 2023.[15]

The bill had 29 cosponsors as of January 2024:[15]

117th Congress (2021-2023)

In the U.S. Senate

The REINS Act of 2021 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate on January 27, 2021. "By making Congress more accountable for the most costly and intrusive federal rules, the REINS Act would give Kentuckians and citizens throughout the country a greater voice in determining whether these major rules are in America’s best interests," said Sen. Paul in a statement about the 2021 version of the bill.[32]

The bill had 30 cosponsors as of March 2022:[17]

In the U.S. House of Representatives

The REINS Act of 2021 was sponsored by Representative Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 10, 2021.[16]

The bill had 126 cosponsors as of November 2022:[16]

116th Congress (2019-2021)

In the U.S. Senate

The REINS Act of 2019 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate. "Last Congress, we made tremendous progress on relieving the burdens placed on the American people by unelected bureaucrats, but much more remains to be done," said Senator Paul in a statement about the 2019 version of the bill. "Passing the REINS Act would reassert Congress’ legislative authority and help us further reduce unnecessary, overreaching government interference in Americans’ everyday lives."[33]

The bill had 42 cosponsors as of July 2020:[19]

In the U.S. House of Representatives

The REINS Act of 2019 was sponsored by U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a statement released the day he sponsored the bill, Sensenbrenner said, "It is time for Congress to reclaim its Article I authority by restoring the constitutional balance of power. The American people deserve a more direct say in regulations that could impact their everyday lives. The REINS Act would place a desperately needed check on unelected bureaucrats, saving taxpayers money."[34]

The bill had 16 cosponsors as of September 2020:[18]

Arguments about the REINS Act

See also: Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to the administrative state

The following sections provide a selection of policy arguments about the REINS Act.

Arguments in support of the REINS Act

Joseph Postell, a visiting fellow for The Heritage Foundation, argued in a 2023 article that the REINS Act is necessary to address concerns with the administrative state:[35]

“ Even the original defenders of the administrative state acknowledged that there were concerns that must be addressed in order to preserve the structure and character of our constitutional system. The basic idea of the REINS Act—that Congress should vote on the major rules that carry significant impact—is rooted in the core constitutional principle of self-government through elected representatives.[29] ”


A 2016 report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) argued that the REINS Act would improve relations between Congress and the administrative state by helping to restore the separation of powers by making members more accountable for regulatory decisions:[36]

“ Members of Congress must face voters every few years. Agency officials do not, and they often enjoy decades-long careers under multiple administrations from both parties. If Members of Congress must publicly put their name to an unpopular or burdensome regulation, they are less likely to let it stand.[29] ”


The CEI report also contended that the REINS Act would increase transparency in the rulemaking process because agencies would know that Congress had the final say before a new regulation could take effect:[36]

“ REINS can provide common ground for conservatives and progressives to work together. Progressives tend to support an active approach to regulation, but that support depends on the content of each individual regulation. REINS would likely still let most, if not all major agency regulations pass—but with some democratic accountability.[29] ”


Law professor Jonathan H. Adler wrote in a 2011 opinion piece in The Regulatory Review that the REINS Act would create accountability in the regulatory process:[37]

“ Delegation of regulatory authority to federal agencies is a fixture of modern administrative law. It is not going away any time soon. But the REINS Act would provide a measured – and wholly constitutional – means to bring under control a practice that undermines political control of and accountability for major regulatory policy decisions.[29] ”


Arguments in opposition to the REINS Act

The Office of Management and Budget argued in a 2023 statement that the REINS Act undermines the regulatory process. The statement argued against passing the act, according to Government Executive:[38]

“ Congress has explicitly charged federal agencies with the responsibility and the authority to act, but the REINS Act of 2023 would undermine agencies’ efforts by inserting into the regulatory process an unwieldy, unnecessary, and time-consuming hurdle that would prevent implementation of critical safeguards that protect public safety, grow our economy, and advance the public interest.[29] ”


Opponents of the REINS Act have argued that the proposal would make it harder for agencies to protect the public and follow the law, according to a 2017 report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law. The report claimed that Congress cannot make the highly technical decisions necessary for good regulation:[39]

“ Preparing and issuing a major rule can take years of hard work by expert agency staff members. The agency must conduct a careful review of scientific evidence, respond to comments from the regulated industry and the protected citizens, and articulate their basis for the rule in the Federal Register. Congress, with its wider docket of issues and its relative lack of expertise on each given regulatory matter, is not well equipped to make these highly technical decisions.[29] ”


The report also argued that the REINS Act raises constitutional concerns because delayed regulations could face court challenges that resemble INS v. Chadha (1984). In Chadha, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one-house legislative vetoes are unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution:[39]

“ The REINS Act is legally questionable and potentially unconstitutional. The major rule review process could result in situations where Congress would be implicitly repealing earlier statutes by omission alone. In particular, in situations where regulations have been issued pursuant to mandatory requirements in earlier statutes, especially those with specific deadlines, Congress would, by failing to approve a rule, effectively be striking down the requirements in those earlier statutes without ever voting directly on an amendment. Courts strongly disfavor implied repeals of statutes.[29] ”


The Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy organization, argued in a 2017 article against the REINS Act, stating that it threatens the separation of powers and politicizes the regulatory process:[40]

“ The REINS Act would inappropriately – but deliberately – inject political considerations into a regulatory process that is supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise. Federal agencies employ personnel with policy, scientific, and technical expertise to produce smart and sensible regulations. Allowing Congress to have the final say on regulations would give lobbyists, special interest groups, and those who provide legislators with campaign contributions even more influence in shaping a rule.[29] ”

Attempts to achieve goals of the REINS Act in other legislation

The following sections provide information on legislation that attempted to achieve goals similar to the REINS Act.

Limit, Save, Grow Act (2023)

The U.S. House of Representatives on April 26, 2023, voted 219-210 to pass H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, which aimed to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling and included provisions related to the REINS Act. President Joe Biden (D) had stated that he would veto the Limit, Save, Grow Act if it reached his desk.[41]

The Limit, Save, Grow Act did not become law. Congress raised the debt ceiling by passing the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which was signed into law on June 3, 2023. The Fiscal Responsibility Act did not include the REINS provisions.[42]

Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (2018)

The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) would have granted the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a panel housed within the Treasury Department, increased authority to review transactions related to direct foreign investments for potential security hazards. The legislation was amended in May 2018 with the support of U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to mirror elements of the REINS Act. Toomey’s amendment would have required a simple majority for congressional approval for CFIUS’ major regulations—those with an annual economic impact upwards of $100 million.[43][44]

The Trump administration opposed FIRRMA on the grounds that the legislation “could potentially result in CFIUS being unable to establish regulations, thereby undermining national security,” according to The Washington Post. FIRRMA did not come to a vote during the 115th United States Congress.[45]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Disapproval of Regulations by Congress:Procedure Under the Congressional Review Act," October 10, 2001
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 GovTrack, "H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017—Overview," accessed July 14, 2017
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Jackson Sun, "We were never closer to seeing REINS Act become law," January 4, 2017
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Congress.gov, "H.R. 3765 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2009," accessed June 7, 2023
  5. ↑ Boston Herald, "Smith: Congress can regain power with REINS," January 6, 2017
  6. ↑ The Heritage Foundation’, “Taking the REINS on Regulation,” October 12, 2011
  7. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, “'REINS Act of 2013': Promoting Jobs, Growth, and Competitiveness,” March 6, 2013
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Congress.gov, "S.21 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017," accessed June 7, 2023
  9. ↑ Reuters, "Republicans act to curb U.S. regulation; Democrats poised for fight," January 5, 2017
  10. ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Senate Panel Moves Regulatory Bills to Aid Economic Recovery (1)," July 22, 2020
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Congress.gov, "H.R.277 - REINS Act of 2023," accessed June 7, 2023
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Congress.gov, "H.R.142 - To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law." accessed January 22, 2025
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Congress.gov, "S.5082 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2024," accessed October 3, 2024
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Congress.gov, "H.R.9648 - To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law," accessed October 3, 2024
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Congress.gov, "S.184 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Congress.gov, "H.R.1776 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2021," accessed June 7, 2023
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Congress.gov, "S.68 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2021," accessed June 7, 2023
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.3972 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019," accessed June 7, 2023
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Congress.gov, "S.92 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019," accessed June 7, 2023
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.26 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017," accessed June 7, 2023
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.427 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015," accessed June 7, 2023
  22. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.266 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015," accessed June 7, 2023
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Congress.gov, "H.R. 367 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013," accessed June 7, 2023
  24. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.15 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013," accessed June 7, 2023
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.10 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011," accessed June 7, 2023
  26. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.299 - REINS Act," accessed June 7, 2023
  27. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.3826 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2010," accessed June 7, 2023
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 GovTrack, "H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017—Library of Congress Summary," accessed July 14, 2017
  29. ↑ 29.00 29.01 29.02 29.03 29.04 29.05 29.06 29.07 29.08 29.09 29.10 29.11 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  30. ↑ Congresswoman Kat Cammack, "Rep. Kat Cammack, Sen. Rand Paul Introduce Regulations From The Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Updates," September 18, 2024
  31. ↑ Congresswoman Kat Cammack, "Congresswoman Cammack Introduces REINS Act To Limit Executive Overreach," January 11, 2023
  32. ↑ Rand Paul, "Dr. Rand Paul Reintroduces the REINS Act for 2021," January 28, 2021
  33. ↑ Official Website, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, "Senators Reintroduce REINS Act," accessed February 8, 2019
  34. ↑ Jim Sensenbrenner, "Sensenbrenner Leads Effort to Rein in Unelected Bureaucrats," July 25, 2019
  35. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, "House to Vote to Reduce Power of Bureaucracy With REINS Act," June 7, 2023
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Competitive Enterprise Institute, "REINing In Regulatory Overreach," November 15, 2016
  37. ↑ The Regulatory Review, "The REINS Act: A Constitutional Means to Control Delegation," July 25, 2011
  38. ↑ Government Executive, "The White House Threatens Vetoes Over Regulation Bills," June 6, 2023
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Institute for Policy Integrity, "The REINS Act Is Burdensome, Irrational, and Legally Questionable," June 2017
  40. ↑ The Public Citizen, "What is the REINS Act and why do we oppose it?" January 3, 2017
  41. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.R.2811 - Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023," accessed June 12, 2023
  42. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.R.3746 - Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023," accessed June 12, 2023
  43. ↑ The Weekly Standard, "Senate to Vote on Measure Giving Congress a Say in Foreign Investment Review Process," June 14, 2018
  44. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018," accessed June 14, 2018
  45. ↑ The Washington Post, "Senate sides with Trump, votes down GOP plan to expand Congress’s national security oversight," June 14, 2018
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
v • e
Ballotpedia
About
Editorial Content
Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=REINS_Act&oldid=10250144"