Throughout the 2016 campaign and the first months of his administration, President Trump has repeatedly pledged to dramatically reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on American businesses by federal agencies.
One of the more significant actions taken by the President to fulfill this commitment came early in his administration in the form of Executive Order (“EO”) 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” The EO imposes two restraints on executive departments and agencies (“agencies”) while formally exempting independent regulatory bodies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from its terms. Both restraints have long been sought by regulatory reformers. [Read More]
The President issued his Executive Order for Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs on January 30, 2017. That EO—better known as the “one in, two out” EO—has not received the same coverage and attention as the travel bans. Yet it has the potential to have sizeable, long-lasting impact. [Read More]
On May 4, President Trump signed a Religious Liberty Executive Order relaxing IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which bans tax-exempt organizations like churches from political speech and activities. The “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” Executive Order also directs “the Secretary of Health and Human Services” to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.”
President Trump’s recent travel ban sparked an interesting constitutional discussion regarding the limits of executive authority. Assuming Judge Robart’s ruling, blocking President Trump’s executive order, does make its way to the Supreme Court, the potential Supreme Court ruling would have broad implications beyond President Trump’s executive order regarding a travel ban. The reverberations of such a ruling will likely effect presidential powers for years to come. For the liberal bloc of the Court to have any hopes of overturning the largest portions of President Trump’s order and create new precedent they need the vote of Justice Kennedy, the so-called “swing vote” on the Supreme Court. In order to draw Justice Kennedy to their side they could offer one incredibly enticing opportunity: the chance to overturn the universally reviled Korematsu v. United States. [Read More]