TriggerFinger


This explains a lot


Daily TorchIn 1983, the Supreme Court decided Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual that rescinding any regulation issued an agency is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis “for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.”

The outcome was that it is much more difficult to rescind an existing regulation than it is to either modify it or never have issued it in the first place, leaving every single regulatory rescission subject to judicial review.

Ultimately, the rescinding agency has to argue not only that rescinding the regulation in question is rational based on the statutory scheme, but prove that enacting it was irrational to begin with.

So it's illegal (according to judicial fiat) to simply remove a regulation because the administration has changed and the new administration favors freedom instead of regulating everything? It's judicially easier to add a new regulation than to remove one? This explains so much of what has happened to government since 1983, if true...

This entry was published Wed Mar 28 09:38:09 CDT 2018 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2018-03-28 09:38:09.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.