Public Participation

Professor Revesz has written an interesting article titled Congress and the Executive: Challenging the Anti-Regulatory Narrative.  In it he concludes:

Furthermore, in a troubling development, the Trump Administration’s has turned away from cost-benefit analysis in order to carry out its anti-regulatory agenda, disregarding an established bipartisan consensus that stretched back several decades.

Whether or not one agrees with his conclusion it emphasizes the importance of preserving critical executive orders as emphasized in this post so they can be used to referee such disputes.

Read a detailed account of the ascendancy of centralized regulatory review beginning with the Johnson Administration through the Reagan Administration. The text is accompanied by footnotes which contain originial source material.

Here

Centralized  Regulatory Review was in existence continuously for 22 years before the signing of  Executive Order 12866.

Editor’s Note:  Subsequent to its initial publication the following article has become one of CRE’s most highly read posts. In retrospect the most forceful commentaries describing the landmark impact of Executive Order 12291 were made by US entities. Nonetheless we were fortunate to locate the comments of a leading scholar located outside the US and are making them available to our readers. In order to continue the deliberative processes initiated by Executive Order 12291 we have undertaken a program to foster the participation of new disciplines in the management of the administrative state by the development of  The  Common Law Initiative.

Several months ago the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness posted its views on dealing with school violence. Subsequently the Washington Post published a companion article that reached a  similar conclusion.  To view the Washington Post article,  CRE  comments thereto and the attendant public comments on both click here.