Full Steam Ahead: Trump Orders Swift Agency Deregulation

On April 9, President Donald Trump furthered his deregulatory agenda by issuing a memorandum directing the repeal of “unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous” regulations. These, in his view, “impose massive costs” on U.S. businesses and consumers, and despite “critical course corrections” by the U.S. Supreme Court, “remain on the books.” 

Since taking office, the president has made his intent plain. In January, the White House announced its long-term plan to “unleash prosperity through deregulation.” Specifically, Trump’s initiative required that for every new regulation an agency adopted, it would have to repeal 10 existing regulations — a considerable jump from the 2-1 goal of his previous term. Executive Order 14219, issued in February, then directed executive agency heads to identify unlawful regulations and prepare to repeal them. 

Quick and Quiet Repeal

Notably, this new memorandum has authorized agencies to repeal regulations without the notice-and-comment procedure. The president cited the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows the notice-and-comment process to be disregarded if it is “contrary to the public interest.” The administration argued that “retaining and enforcing facially unlawful regulations is clearly contrary to public interest.” Agencies have thus been given the authority to repeal flagged regulations without the typical review proceedings that would allow the public to participate and provide feedback. 

Decisions Listed as Bases for Deregulation 

In the memorandum, Trump listed 10 Supreme Court cases and instructed agencies to “give priority to the regulations in conflict” with those decisions. 

The first of the highlighted cases was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). That decision saw the Supreme Court overrule a 1984 decision that held courts should accede to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of imprecise laws passed by Congress. The decision set a “new precedent to guide lower courts to not give deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of laws when challenged,” said Emily M. Dickens, chief of staff, head of government affairs, and corporate secretary for SHRM. The Loper Bright decision suggested employers would have to worry about fewer regulations and could more easily challenge rules from agencies such as the Department of Labor (DOL). 

Trump also singled out West Virginia v. EPA (2022), a decision that weakened the regulatory authority of the DOL, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Supreme Court concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not implement or enforce its Clean Air Act regulations, citing the “major questions doctrine.” The doctrine states that when an agency tries to regulate a matter of political and economic significance, it must first obtain congressional authorization. 

Another notable Supreme Court decision was SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), in which the court stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of its ability to recover civil penalties for fraud at administrative proceedings. This set the precedent for similar limitations on the enforcement authority of agencies such as the NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. According to the court, the government must seek civil penalties for federal-securities fraud before a jury in federal court instead of before an agency. 

The president also highlighted the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which curbed affirmative action in higher education. In response to two lawsuits accusing Harvard University and the University of North Carolina of racial discrimination in admissions, the court ruled that universities “may never use race as a stereotype or negative.” In the wake of the decision, SHRM restated its commitment to developing “innovative approaches to build better workplaces for an increasingly diverse workforce.” 

According to the administration’s new order, the above rulings — and the six others mentioned in the memorandum — will serve as the bases for the “review-and-repeal effort.” Each regulation that is repealed must be accompanied by a short statement that explains how the “good cause exception” applies, thereby defending the dispensation of the notice-and-comment procedure. For flagged regulations that are not ultimately repealed, agencies must write a report explaining the decision not to do so.

Rachel Zheliabovskii is a specialist, B2C content, at SHRM.