Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Administrative state 2025 legislation: Noteworthy topics, bills, and states
August 20, 2025
By Ballotpedia staff
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Noteworthy topics, bills, and states
REINS-style acts
What does it do?
REINS-style state laws, modeled after a federal legislative proposal titled the REINS Act, require a cost-benefit analysis and preemptive legislative action on an agency rule estimated to exceed certain financial or economic thresholds. REINS-style laws differ by economic threshold and type of legislative action required.
REINS-style proposals are part of the legislative pillar of the administrative state. They are designed to increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking.
How many were tracked?
17 states considered 23 different REINS-style bills or resolutions in 2025.
Five were enacted in (Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Utah).[1] Three were enacted in Republican trifectas (Louisiana, Oklahoma, Utah) and two in divided governments (Kentucky and North Carolina, both through veto overrides).
- Utah HB 474: Requires statutory approval of rules with implementation and compliance costs of $2 million or more over a five-year period, as well as legislative review of rules costing $1 million or more over a five-year period.
- Oklahoma SB 995 and HB 2728: Require legislative approval for all rules, including major ones defined as costing $1 million or more over five years.
- Louisiana SB 59: Requires legislative subcommittee approval for rules estimated to cost $200,000 per year or $600,000 over three years, though if the committees do not review a rule for more than 30 days, the governor can approve the rule.
- Kentucky HB 6: Requires legislative approval for new rules, with some exceptions for rules with an economic impact below $500,000 over a two-year period. The Kentucky legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Andy Beshear (D) on March 27, 2025.
- North Carolina HB 402: Requires legislative approval for rules with an estimated economic impact of $20 million or more within five years. It requires boards and commissions to approve proposed rules with estimated costs above $1 million with a two-thirds majority and requires unanimous approval for those estimated to exceed $10 million. The North Carolina legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Josh Stein (D) to enact the bill into law on July 29, 2025, with two House Democrats voting with the Republicans in support of the override.
Status of 2025 REINS legislation
- Signed into law- 3
- Veto overridden - 2
- Vetoed (not overridden) - 0
- Not approved - 18
2024 vs. 2025
The maps below compare legislative activity on REINS-style bills in 2024 and 2025.
Other noteworthy legislative oversight bills
Ballotpedia also tracked bills requiring legislative oversight of agency actions, but which do not fit the definition of REINS-style bills. This includes an enacted Wyoming bill that was introduced as a REINS-style bill but that was passed, after amendments, with features that Ballotpedia does not classify as REINS-like.
How many were tracked?
39 states considered 189 different bills that involved legislative oversight of agency actions. Of these, 33 were passed or enacted by veto override. Some notable examples included:
- Wyoming SF0127: Requires the Legislative Service Office to analyze major regulations (defined as having an economic impact of $100,000 or above), and provides a mechanism for legislators to introduce legislation to prevent a regulation from taking effect. This bill was introduced with REINS-like features, but does not meet Ballotpedia’s definition of a REINS-like law as enacted. The Wyoming legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Mark Gordon (R) to enact the bill into law on March 6, 2025.
- Montana HB592: Requires agencies that make a rule to implement legislation to notify and provide official explanations to the lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, and empowers the sponsor to request an economic impact statement.
- Oregon HB3569: Requires agencies that make a rule to implement legislation to invite the legislative sponsor as a non-voting member of an advisory committee.
- Nebraska LB660]: Requires “a review of all existing and pending rules and regulations” for state agencies, to be repeated every five years, and to be reported to the legislature.
Judicial deference
What does it do?
Judicial deference, in the context of administrative law, is when a court yields to an agency's interpretation of the law. The level of deference that state or federal courts give to agency rules can be set by law or through legal precedent. Laws can require or allow a certain level of deference, or they can require de novo judicial review of agency actions or rules without deference to a previous agency interpretation.
How many were tracked?
21 states considered 34 different judicial deference-related bills or resolutions in 2025.
Five were enacted that prohibit or limit judicial deference, requiring courts to give a level of de novo review to agency interpretations:
- Kentucky - Divided government
- Louisiana - Republican trifecta
- Missouri - Republican trifecta
- Oklahoma - Republican trifecta
- Texas - Republican trifecta
This was more than twice the legislative activity Ballotpedia tracked in 2024 concerning limiting or prohibiting judicial deference.
One bill, Utah SJR 6, calls on state agencies to reassess federal mandates in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which limits judicial deference to federal agency interpretations. Utah has a Republican trifecta.
One bill in Maine was considered that required courts to defer to the interpretation of an ambiguous statute or rule by the agency charged with its implementation.
Status of 2025 judicial deference bills
- Enacted - 5
- Vetoed - 0
- Veto overridden - 0
- Not approved - 29
2024 vs. 2025
The maps below show state legislative activity on bills banning or limiting judicial deference in 2024 compared to 2025. The first map shows 2024 activity, and the second map shows 2025 activity.
Regulatory budgets and regulatory sandboxes
What does it do?
Regulatory budget policies limit the cost that agencies can impose through rulemaking. Regulatory budgets often include deleting a certain number of rules or regulations for each new one created; some require states to keep total state regulatory costs below a specific monetary threshold.
Regulatory sandboxes are programs exempting new businesses from certain regulations, usually for a specified amount of time, to test products in the market with reduced licensure or permitting requirements.
How many were tracked?
18 states considered 29 different regulatory budgets and regulatory sandbox bills or resolutions in 2025. 3 were enacted:
Status of 2025 regulatory reduction bills
- Enacted - 2
- Vetoed - 1
- Veto overridden - 1
- Not approved - 25
Government efficiency and state-level DOGE bills
What does it do?
State-level government efficiency bills are designed to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of government agencies, programs, or regulations. The proposals differ significantly.
Several bills were designed to create executive branch entities focused on increasing efficiency within the branch, in some cases modeled after the federal-level Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative.
- North Carolina enacted a bill to establish the Division of Accountability, Value, and Efficiency (DAVE) within the Department of the State Auditor, with a mandate to assess the efficiency of other state executive agencies.
Other proposals related to government efficiency included:
- Creating a legislative task force to study and make recommendations to increase executive branch efficiency (Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Washington).
- Increasing agency reporting on hiring or employee performance metrics (Illinois, Kentucky).
- Allowing the public to recommend ways to improve government efficiency (Connecticut, South Carolina, Washington).
One resolution from Montana was designed to prevent the federal DOGE from acquiring Montana citizens' personally identifiable data.
How many were tracked?
28 states considered 68 different government efficiency bills or resolutions in 2025. Nine were enacted, four in Texas, three in Montana, and one each in Kentucky and North Dakota. Eight of these bills came from Republican trifectas, and one from a divided government. Four bills had bipartisan sponsorship, four had Republican sponsorship, and one had Democratic sponsorship.
Status of 2025 government efficiency bills
- Enacted - 9
- Vetoed - 0
- Veto overridden - 0
- Not approved - 59
Artificial intelligence (AI)
What does it do?
Several states have enacted artificial intelligence (AI) legislation related to the administrative state function and authority. The reforms included, but aren't limited to:
- Establishing guidelines for state agencies using AI
- Creating regulatory sandboxes for AI innovation
- Creating executive branch task forces or agencies related to AI
- Charging specific agencies with overseeing or developing AI resources in the state
Because the reforms vary, they are related to both the agency and public control pillars of the administrative state.
How many were tracked?
Nineteen (19) states considered 26 bills related to artificial intelligence and state agencies or commissions. Ten were enacted, two from Delaware, two from Texas, and one each from Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, and New Mexico. Five of these bills came from Republican trifectas, three from Democratic trifectas, and two from a divided government. Five bills had bipartisan sponsorship, and three had Republican sponsorship.
Status of 2025 AI bills
- Enacted - 10
- Vetoed - 0
- Veto overridden - 0
- Not approved - 17
Federalism highlights in 2025 administrative state legislation
What do they do?
Legislation related to federalism and the administrative state addresses how authority is shared and exercised between state and federal governments. These laws often seek to assert or clarify state control over certain policy areas with federal regulations, limit or require state or local cooperation with federal directives, or increase transparency around federal influence on state agencies. This section highlights selected enacted laws from 2025 that reflect these dynamics. Some measures apply statewide, while many others are agency-specific—particularly in areas like healthcare and immigration.
How many were tracked?
A total of 180 bills related to federalism and the administrative state were tracked across 35 states in 2025. Of those, 31 were enacted in 14 states. Republican lawmakers sponsored 18 of the enacted bills, Democrats sponsored six, five were bipartisan, and two had other sponsorship. Utah passed the most with nine, followed by Montana with three, and Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia with two each.
Status of 2025 federalism bills
- Enacted - 31
- Vetoed - 3
- Veto overridden - 1
- Not approved - 1
Noteworthy enacted bills
Federal funding oversight
- Indiana SB 5 requires Indiana executive agencies to obtain budget committee review before accepting federal funds that carry mandates, reinforcing legislative oversight of administrative compliance with federal conditions.
- Nebraska LB 660 mandates that state agencies compile and submit a comprehensive inventory of all federal funding, including attached mandates, to improve legislative oversight of federal-state fiscal interactions.
Limits on enforcing federal mandates
- Utah HB 380 requires federal jurisdiction to be affirmatively demonstrated before state cooperation, limiting state agency enforcement of certain federal directives.
- Utah SB 265 authorizes the Legislature to prohibit enforcement of federal directives it finds unconstitutional, expanding administrative restrictions to additional public employees and requiring attorney general consultation.
Agency transparency and review
- Utah HB 488 expands the Federalism Commission’s oversight role and requires state agencies to review and report on federal jurisdiction issues, integrating federalism monitoring into administrative operations.
- Utah SB 198 mandates that state agencies publicly disclose federal guidance letters within 15 days, increasing transparency over federal influence on state administrative actions.
- Utah SJR 6 reaffirms state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and calls on state agencies to reassess federal mandates in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which limits judicial deference to federal agency interpretations.
Standout states
The following states enacted significant legislation related to the noteworthy topics above.<ref>Utah's bill in the judicial deference category has to do with reviewing federal agency regulations upheld through federal judicial deference, not any limitation or prohibition on state court deference to state agencies.<ref>
Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker
Keeping track of the latest administrative state developments in all 50 state legislatures with Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker.
Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker allows you to track, query, and analyze hundreds of bills and resolutions affecting the authority and influence of agencies and agency rulemaking. Whether you're watching for specific reform policies, looking for trends, or keeping up-to-date on the changes in the administrative state landscape, our administrative state legislation tracker is your easy-to-use and flexible solution.
