Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s memo on the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Board “encapsulates a humility and restraint and respect for rule of law that is often all too lacking in government.” [Ira Stoll, New York Sun]
Posts Tagged ‘regulation and its reform’
February 7 roundup
- “The rate of litigation is simply so much greater in the U.S., it is understandable why [foreign firms] feel as though they have a target on their backs.” [Richard Levick, Forbes]
- Don’t forget: at noon Eastern tomorrow (Thursday) I’m hosting Lenore Skenazy (Free-Range Kids) and Dara Lind (Vox) at Cato to talk about problems with the sex offender registry. You can watch online here. Background here and here;
- Regulators don’t always enforce all the regulations on their books. Yes, and? [Aaron Nielson] And the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, now free online, has an article on Regulation by Michael Munger;
- “Is your child texting about partisan gerrymandering?…” My bit of Twitter humor [Free State Notes]
- Lawyer seeks injunction against specific part of rapper’s masculine anatomy [Deborah Horne, KIRO]
- The next generation of libertarian thinkers, leaders, and advocates are part of the Cato Institute internship program [promotional video]
U.S. Department of Justice: We’re ending regulation by guidance
The U.S. Department of Justice, November 17 [press release/memo]:
Today, in an action to further uphold the rule of law in the executive branch, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo prohibiting the Department of Justice from issuing guidance documents that have the effect of adopting new regulatory requirements or amending the law. The memo prevents the Department of Justice from evading required rulemaking processes by using guidance memos to create de facto regulations.
In the past, the Department of Justice and other agencies have blurred the distinction between regulations and guidance documents. Under the Attorney General’s memo, the Department may no longer issue guidance documents that purport to create rights or obligations binding on persons or entities outside the Executive Branch….
“Guidance documents can be used to explain existing law,” Associate Attorney General Brand said. “But they should not be used to change the law or to impose new standards to determine compliance with the law. The notice-and-comment process that is ordinarily required for rulemaking can be cumbersome and slow, but it has the benefit of availing agencies of more complete information about a proposed rule’s effects than the agency could ascertain on its own. This Department of Justice will not use guidance documents to circumvent the rulemaking process, and we will proactively work to rescind existing guidance documents that go too far.”
This is an initiative of potentially great significance. For many decades, critics have noted that agencies were using Dear Colleague and guidance letters, memos and so forth — also known variously as subregulatory guidance, stealth regulation and regulatory dark matter — to grab new powers and ban new things in the guise of interpreting existing law, all while bypassing notice-and-comment and other constraints on actual rulemaking. To be sure, many judgment calls and hard questions of classification do arise as to when an announced position occupies new territory as opposed to simply stating in good faith what current law is believed to be. But the full text of the memo shows a creditable awareness of these issues. Note also, even before the Justice memo, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s statement in September, on revoking the Obama Title IX Dear Colleague letter: “The era of ‘rule by letter’ is over.”
Another notable pledge in the DoJ press release:
The Attorney General’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, led by Associate Attorney General Brand, will conduct a review of existing Department documents and will recommend candidates for repeal or modification in the light of this memo’s principles.
Note also this recent flap over certain financial regulations and the possibility that they may have been issued without notice to Congress, which could preserve Congress’s right to examine and block them under the terms of the Congressional Review Act.
Tracking the pace of deregulation
Brookings has a deregulation tracker here. Whether this constitutes a Trump/Republican deregulatory “juggernaut,” as some contend, will have to be left to the reader. [Matt Welch, Gerald F. Seib, WSJ]
Related: “Don’t Write Off the Congressional Review Act Yet” [Susan Dudley, Yale Journal on Regulation]
November 1 roundup
- Antitrust crackdown on Big Tech based on predictions of where markets may head in future? Just don’t [Alan Reynolds in part three of series; parts one and two]
- Copyright holder sends mass demands to IP address holders, but for lower amounts and as “fines” rather than settlements. A move away from troll model, or refinement of it? [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]
- Among the many issues far afield from Bill of Rights that ACLU is up to lately: defending drive-by ADA filing operations against remedial legislation [ACLU, earlier on its drift from civil liberties mission]
- Texas AG sues arguing unconstitutionality of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); case involves blocking of “adoption [that] has the support of the boy’s biological parents and grandmother, Paxton said.” [Texas Tribune] More: Timothy Sandefur, NR;
- More local and personal than my usual fare, I ramble about my education and upbringing, why I live where I live, as well as some policy matters [Frederick News-Post “Frederick Uncut” local-newsmaker podcast with Colin McGuire and Danielle Gaines]
- “What’s the Difference between ‘Major,’ ‘Significant,’ and All Those Other Federal Rule Categories?” [Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., CEI]
US finally deregulates telegraph service
“The FCC said in a notice it was removing ‘outmoded regulations’ on telegraphs effective in November.” And none too soon: “The last Western Union telegram in the United States was sent in 2006” and the “last major telegram service worldwide ended in India in 2013.” [David Shepardson, Reuters via @AjitPaiFCC]
AT&T Inc, originally known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, in 2013 lamented the FCC’s failure to formally stop enforcing some telegraph rules.
“Regulations have a tendency to persist long after they outlived any usefulness and it takes real focus and effort to ultimately remove them from the books even when everyone agrees that it is the common sense thing to do,” the company said.
In Chapter 8 of The Litigation Explosion I used the old body of law concerning liability for mishandled telegrams to illustrate the contrast between damages that were direct and certain on the one hand, and speculative on the other. And in 2011 I observed that Connecticut had yet to get around to repealing old state laws like those regulating the working conditions of telegraph messengers (cross-posted at Cato at Liberty).
Thom Lambert, “How to Regulate: A Guide for Policymakers”
In the mail: Thom Lambert (University of Missouri School of Law), “How to Regulate: A Guide for Policymakers” from Cambridge, with blurbs from Cass Sunstein and the Hon. Doug Ginsburg. [Amazon, more] Summary:
Markets sometimes fail. But so do regulatory efforts to correct market failures. Sometimes regulations reach too far, condemning good activities as well as bad, and sometimes they don’t reach far enough, allowing bad behavior to persist. In this highly instructive book, Thomas A. Lambert explains the pitfalls of both extremes while offering readers a manual of effective regulation, showing how the best regulation maximizes social welfare and minimizes social costs. Working like a physician, Lambert demonstrates how regulators should diagnose the underlying disease and identify its symptoms, potential remedies for it, and their side effects before selecting the regulation that offers the greatest net benefit. This book should be read by policymakers, students, and anyone else interested in understanding how the best regulations are crafted and why they work.
In January, Thom wrote more about the book at Truth on the Market, including an introduction and a followup on externalities.
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- “The justices tackle partisan gerrymandering again: In Plain English” [Amy Howe, SCOTUSBlog, earlier on Gill v. Whitford here and here] SCOTUS declines to speed up review of Maryland gerrymander, and what that could mean for wider issue [Lyle Denniston]
- Reversal of fortune: firing back on the Hamilton angle in Emoluments Clause fight [Josh Blackman on new filings countering previous Hamilton claims, Prof. Jed Shugerman’s apology, Adam Liptak]
- From Usery to Garcia to commandeering: better for SCOTUS to respect states’ core sovereignty [Nick Dranias, Liberty and Law]
- Cato Unbound roundtable on religious liberty with Ilya Shapiro, David Gans, Robin Fretwell Wilson, and K. Hollyn Hollman; related 2016 conference and new volume from Cato, Deep Commitments; 2016 religious liberty report from U.S. Conference on Civil Rights (note in particular separate statements and rebuttals by commissioners including Gail Heriot);
- Panel on expected trends in federal courts with Republican nominations: Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein, Adam White, James Copland [Manhattan Institute] At 23:35, White refers to Scalia’s 1981 “Regulatory Reform: The Game Has Changed” on how party control change implies playbook change in seeking regulatory reform, while Epstein at 28:00 cites his own exchange with Scalia;
- SCOTUS should apply papers and effects language of Fourth Amendment to protect data records as property [Ilya Shapiro]
August 16 roundup
- Federalist Society podcast with Wayne Crews and Devon Westhill on subregulatory guidance, agency memos, circulars, Dear Colleague letters, and other regulatory “dark matter”;
- Having announced end to practice of funneling litigation settlement cash to private advocacy groups, AG Sessions plans to investigate some actions of previous administration in this line [New York Post, earlier, related Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz testimony on Obama bank settlements]
- Update: jury acquits 4 Boston Teamsters on extortion charges in intimidation of “Top Chef” show and guest host Padma Lakshmi [Nate Raymond/Reuters (“smash your pretty little face”), more, Daily Mail (language, epithets); earlier]
- “Hunted becomes the hunter: How Cloudflare is turning the tables on a patent troll” [Connie Loisos, Techcrunch]
- Here’s a pro se sovereign citizen complaint if you can stand to look [@associatesmind thread on this N.D. Calif. filing]
- IP license withheld: “Spain’s Bright Blue ‘Smurf Village’ Is Being Forced to De-Smurf” [Cara Giaimo, Atlas Obscura; Júzcar, Spain]
July 5 roundup
- Court order (arising from federal demand for information on three accounts) forbids Facebook “from communicating the existence of the warrants to its users” [Paul Alan Levy]
- “The great intellectual property trade-off”: brief guide to IP by economist Tim Harford [BBC]
- Eye-opening if dogmatic history of how federal government and other institutions connived at residential segregation [David Oshinsky in N.Y. Times reviewing Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law]
- About those “do not remove under penalty of law” mattress tags [Now I Know]
- What comes after a Congressional Review Act (CRA) repeal of a regulation? [Sam Batkins and Adam White, Cato Regulation magazine]
- Estate tax, DC Metro, bogus search-engine takedown suits, and kudos for a Democrat in my latest Maryland policy roundup [Free State Notes]