A 2-Fer Update

Posted on May 1, 2018 by Mark Walker

Seth Jaffe and I have both previously blogged about Public Citizen v. Trump. It is the lawsuit challenging Trump’s Executive Order 13771 which, with some exceptions, mandates two existing federal regulations be eliminated for every new regulation. Several public interest groups challenged the EO asserting that it will block or repeal regulations needed to protect the environment, health and safety and that it directs federal agencies to engage in decision making that is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to other existing laws.

Since its filing, no substantive issues have been addressed. Instead, the case has been mired in addressing the issue of standing. Standing requires that the plaintiffs demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. In order to demonstrate Article III jurisdiction, the plaintiff associations must either show “associational standing” or “organizational standing”. Associational standing requires that the plaintiffs demonstrate that the EO will substantially increase the risk that at least one of their members will either be harmed or face a substantial probability of harm once such increased risk is taken into account. Organizational standing requires that the plaintiffs demonstrate that they have standing to sue in their own right which requires that they show the EO will have a chilling effect on their missions.

On February 26, 2018, Judge Moss ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing and that, therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain their lawsuit. In a lengthy decision, the judge held that the plaintiffs had not identified a specific member who had yet suffered an injury as a result of the EO. The plaintiffs brought this action before any specific regulatory actions had been taken pursuant to the EO. Therefore, they could not identify any specific regulations that had been repealed or were likely to be repealed as a result of the EO. The court held that plaintiffs’ allegation that it was “likely” that the EPA and other agencies would stop seeking new regulations in order to protect existing ones was overly speculative.

Most of plaintiffs’ arguments in support of associational standing related to their claims that the EO had already delayed the issuance of new regulations. For example, the plaintiffs alleged that the EO had already delayed an unspecified regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. One of the NRDC’s members asserted that global warming and the resulting rise in sea level would deprive him of water supply and the use of his home. However, as Judge Moss noted, the plaintiffs had not identified any proposed rule or putative regulatory action that addressed this concern or that had been delayed by the EO.

As to organizational standing, the plaintiffs claimed that the EO would cause them harm by chilling their advocacy activities. The advanced basis for this claim was that the plaintiffs would now have to “think twice” about advocating new regulations with the knowledge that a new regulation could result in the elimination of two regulations which plaintiffs believe are necessary protections, thus imperiling their ability to advocate thereby chilling their First Amendment right. However, the plaintiffs could not point to any specific regulation which had yet presented this alleged Catch 22. Instead, they merely claimed they were now forced to consider the issue. Judge Moss held that this “think twice” argument did not establish an injury in fact.

This case is a text book example of the difficulties public advocacy groups face in demonstrating standing, particularly where the new proposed regulation has not yet been adopted or implemented. Although the plaintiffs amended their claims once before to address standing, Judge Moss has allowed them to amend again to try to establish standing. Of course, if subsequent agency actions pursuant to the EO demonstrate standing, the plaintiffs will then be allowed to pursue a lawsuit. It is noted that the Trump Administration is now proposing a 3-for-1 plan for 2018.

A 2-Fer

Posted on May 25, 2017 by Mark Walker

Trump’s 2-for-1 Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017) requires that two existing regulations be eliminated for each newly enacted regulation in order to control regulatory costs and burdens.  The EO requires that the total incremental cost of all new and repealed regulations in FY 2017 be $0 or less.  The EO applies to most federal agencies, including the EPA.

Can anyone seriously contend that we cannot afford to get rid of some existing federal regulations?  Apparently yes - the idea was immediately dubbed by some as “ridiculous”.  A lawsuit has already been filed challenging the EO as facially arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. 

Fourteen States recently filed an Amici Curiae brief in the lawsuit supporting the EO, pointing out that numerous Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, have previously issued executive orders seeking to reduce the number of federal regulations and the overall regulatory burden.

The notion of eliminating one or more existing regulations for each new regulation in order to reduce costs is nothing new.  The Netherlands, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have all previously enacted similar policies.  The UK currently has a 3-for-1 policy, which is estimated to have saved billions.

Certainly the 2-for-1 policy presents administrative and procedural challenges.  There is the sticky problem of estimating costs, as the EO is intended to address total opportunity costs (opportunities foregone by society as a whole - workers, businesses, consumers, households, etc.), and not simply business compliance costs.  In addition, the repeal of existing regulations must be done in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which itself can be time consuming and costly.

The EO contains a savings clause that says no existing regulations can be repealed where prohibited by law.  Therefore, regulations expressly required by law without the consideration of costs cannot be repealed pursuant to the EO.  However, discretionary regulations are fair game.  Once again, we’ll have to wait and see how this EO holds up after court scrutiny.