Three liberal advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit alleging that President Trump’s 2-for-1 regulation mandate violates the Constitution and directs agencies to violate federal law.
 |
In a January 30 Executive Order, Trump instructed federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one issued during the current fiscal year. He said the order was aimed at alleviating the regulatory burdens that businesses face. (For more information, see Trump Aims to Help Businesses with 2-for-1 Regulatory Plan.)
Now, consumer group Public Citizen is challenging the order, joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Communications Workers of America. In a February 8 complaint, the groups alleged that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and requires federal agencies to violate both the laws they implement and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“No one thinking sensibly about how to set rules for health, safety, the environment and the economy would ever adopt the Trump Executive Order approach—unless their only goal was to confer enormous benefits on big business,” said Public Citizen’s president, Robert Weissman, in a statement. “If implemented, the order would result in lasting damage to our government’s ability to save lives, protect our environment, police Wall Street, keep consumers safe and fight discrimination.”
The lawsuit also takes issue with the order’s requirement that agencies ensure the total cost of their regulations is zero or creates a net gain. “To repeal two regulations for the purpose of adopting one new one, based solely on a directive to impose zero net costs and without any consideration of benefits, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law,” the complaint alleges.
The suit asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to temporarily halt the order until it can hear the case on its merits. (Public Citizen, et al. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00253 (D.D.C. Feb. 8, 2017))
|
|
Kate McGovern Tornone is an editor at BLR. She has almost 10 years’ experience covering a variety of employment law topics and currently writes for
You’ve got to wonder about the common sense of people who would support such a policy. Especially when so many low level workers could be negatively affected. I’m not sure how a person could see this as beneficial to anyone other than big business.
Rules and regulations sometimes become unnecessary or they simply are not effective for the purpose they were created.
Suggesting that regulations be reviewed periodically seems reasonable.
Regulations are rules of governance, over time, some rules need review to determine their, need to be modified, improved, or removed from existence.