Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

REINS-style state laws

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is the REINS Act?

The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) is a legislative proposal aimed at increasing legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval of agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations take effect. Click here to learn about the federal-level REINS Act.

Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Legislative control

•Court cases
 • Major arguments
• Reform proposals
• Scholarly work
• Timeline

More pillars
•Agency control
• Executive control
•Judicial control
• Public control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


What are REINS-style state laws?
REINS-style state laws are state laws that increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval or review of proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective. They are modeled after a federal legislative proposal called the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act).

Click here to view the details of what two reform proposals comprise a REINS-style state law. Click here to learn more about the federal legislative proposal.

Why does it matter?
REINS-style state laws are one of several other types of policy proposals designed to increase legislative oversight of agency regulations. REINS-style state laws provide state legislatures with more direct control over major agency regulations with significant economic impacts by granting lawmakers the preemptive authority to review and halt the enactment of certain regulations. They address the separation of powers between state legislatures and state executive branches in administrative rulemaking by undelegating executive branch authority.

What are the key arguments?
The REINS Act and related state laws are part of a broader debate surrounding the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in relation to administrative rulemaking. Supporters argue that REINS-style state laws restore the separation of powers, make the legislative branch accountable for regulatory decisions, and increase transparency in the rulemaking process.

Conversely, opponents contend that the laws hinder the efficiency of regulatory agencies, delay necessary regulations, and undermine agencies' expertise in topics where state legislatures lack detailed knowledge. They also argue that it leads to increased political gridlock.

What's the background?
REINS-style state laws were effective in Florida (2010), Wisconsin (2017), Indiana (2024), Kansas (2024), Kentucky (2025), Louisiana (2025), Oklahoma (2025), Utah (2025), and North Carolina (2025), as of July 2025. Wisconsin, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah's REINS-style state laws were signed into law by Republican governors in states with Republican trifectas. Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina's REINS-style state laws were enacted in states with divided governments by overriding a governor's veto. Click here to learn more about the details of these laws.

To track the progress of other proposed REINS-style state laws, view Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker.

Dive deeper
The article contains the following sections:

REINS-style state laws

See also: Kansas REINS-style state law • Indiana REINS-style state law • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Florida REINS-style state law • Kentucky REINS-style state law • Utah REINS-style state law • Oklahoma REINS-style state law • Louisiana REINS-style state law • North Carolina REINS-style state law

What makes a REINS-style state law

REINS-style state laws contain the following two reform proposals: requiring a cost-benefit analysis of a rule expected to exceed certain financial or economic thresholds, and preemptive legislative action on that agency rule.

Cost-based analyses of agency rules require an entity to review and evaluate the impact of agency rules and determine if they are expected to exceed a certain cost threshold over a certain time. REINS-style state laws differ on the cost threshold and across how much time, whether non-quantifiable or social costs are included, and who completes the evaluation. The evaluator can be a legislative committee, a legislative office, an independent reviewer, or an agency entity.

REINS-style state laws require legislative action before an agency rule identified as having an estimated cost above the specified threshold can go into effect. The degree of legislative action varies; it can be legislative review by a legislatively controlled body, approval through a joint or concurrent resolution, or enactment of a statute that approves a rule.

Enacted REINS-style state laws

The table below provides an overview of enacted REINS-style state laws. Click on the links below to view more information on each REINS-style state law.

REINS-style state laws overview
State Passage details State law details
Year enacted Passage Governor at the time Trifecta status Monetary/temporal threshold Legislative involvement* Oversight authority
North Carolina 2025 Veto overridden Josh Stein (D) Divided government $20 million over five years[1] Requires legislative approval State legislature
Louisiana 2025 Gov. signed Jeff Landry (R) Republican trifecta $200,000 per year or $600,000 over three years Requires legislative approval[2] State legislative oversight committees[3]
Oklahoma 2025 Gov. signed[4] Kevin Stitt (R) Republican trifecta $1 million or more over five years Requires legislative approval[5] State legislature
Utah 2025 Gov. signed Spencer Cox (R) Republican trifecta $2 million or more over five years Requires statutory authorization State legislature
Kentucky 2025 Veto overridden Andy Beshear (D) Divided government $500 thousand or more over two years Requires statutory authorization State legislature
Kansas 2024 Veto overridden Laura Kelly (D) Divided government $1 million or more over five years Requires legislative approval State legislature
Indiana 2024 Gov. signed Eric Holcomb (R) Republican trifecta $1 million or more over two years Requires legislative review Budget Committee of the State Budget Agency
Wisconsin 2017 Gov. signed Scott Walker (R) Republican trifecta $10 million or more over two years Requires legislative approval Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules
Florida 2010 Veto overridden Charlie Crist (former-R) Divided government $1 million or more over five years Requires legislative approval State legislature
*Laws requiring legislative approval of rules over a certain monetary threshold require the legislature to ratify or authorize rules before they are published. Laws requiring legislative review of certain rules include review by a legislative body as part of the rulemaking process for rules over a certain monetary threshold.


This map displays states with enacted REINS-style state laws by trifecta status.

Other types of legislative oversight

REINS-style policies differ from other forms of legislative oversight, such as the legislative veto or the federal Congressional Review Act— which allow legislatures to retroactively nullify agency rules— and state statutes requiring legislative ratification or approval of all rules. They are designed to increase preemptive legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval or review of proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective.

Legislative ratification or approval of all agency rules

These laws differ from REINS-style state laws in that they require approval of all agency rules, whereas REINS-style state laws only apply to rules that meet or exceed certain financial or economic thresholds.

West Virginia

Another form of legislative oversight is state statutes requiring legislative ratification or approval of all agency rules, as seen in West Virginia. West Virginia Code § 29A-3-9 requires all proposed agency rules to be authorized by the state legislature before the rule is promulgated, regardless of the estimated monetary threshold of the rule. The text of the statute states:[6][7]

“ When an agency proposes a legislative rule, other than an emergency rule, it shall be deemed to be applying to the Legislature for permission, to be granted by law, to promulgate such rule as approved by the agency for submission to the Legislature or as amended and authorized by the Legislature by law.[8] ”


Idaho

Idaho is another example of a state with this type of legislative oversight. The Idaho Administrative Procedure Act requires legislative approval by a concurrent resolution of the legislature for all new regulations. State law also includes provisions authorizing the legislature to "review an existing regulation at any point in time and reject those deemed inconsistent with legislative intent via concurrent resolution," according to a Cato Institute report.[9]

Legislative nullification of agency rules and legislative vetoes

These types of legislative oversight are similar to the federal Congressional Review Act, allowing the legislature to introduce legislation to nullify agency rules after they have been issued to be signed into law by the governor; in contrast, REINS-style laws require approval or review before a rule takes effect. A legislative veto refers to a resolution by a legislative body that invalidates an action by the executive branch, and doesn't always require a governor's signature. At the federal level, the legislative veto refers to a resolution by one house of Congress, both houses of Congress, or a congressional committee that nullifies an executive action. Some state legislatures are authorized to issue legislative vetoes in certain cases by enacting a statute or passing a resolution.[10]

Wyoming

Wyoming state law allows legislators to introduce legislation seeking to block the implementation or enforcement of major rules, differing from a REINS-style law in that it doesn't require the legislature to approve all major rules.[11]

Legislation related to REINS-style state laws

The table below shows REINS-style legislation and legislation designed to establish a cost analysis threshold for legislative oversight during the current legislative session (2025). It displays all introduced legislation, including bills that are dead, enacted, or in progress. Click here to view the legislation in Ballotpedia's Administrative State legislation tracker and explore by bill status, provision details, sponsors, and more.[12]

Scroll through the table below and click on each bill in the table to see details. Click here to view the legislation in Ballotpedia's Administrative State legislation tracker and explore by bill status, provision details, sponsors, and more.

Noteworthy events

This section tracks legislative attempts at the state-level to enact REINS-style laws.

Timeline

Below is a timeline of all the enacted REINS-style state laws. To see more details about each state's REINS-style law, visit the state-specific pages.

View all

Other noteworthy events related to REINS-style state laws

This section includes other noteworthy events related to REINS-style state laws.

Pennsylvania Senate passes REINS-style state law (June 2025)

The Pennsylvania Senate passed a REINS-style state law on June 10, 2025, requiring regulations estimated by the Independent Fiscal Office to result in direct or indirect costs to the state, local governments, or the private sector more than $1 million on an annual basis to be approved by the legislature through a concurrent resolution to take effect. It passed the state Senate 27-23 along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing. The measure was pending the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as of June 13, 2025.[19]

Wyoming Legislature overrides veto enacting retroactive legislative check on agency rules (March 2025)

The Wyoming Legislature overrode Governor Mark Gordon (R)'s veto of Wyoming Senate File (SF) 0127 on March 6, 2025, which allows the legislature to introduce legislation seeking to block the implementation or enforcement of major rules, similar to Congress’ disapproval process under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Gordon vetoed the bill on March 4, 2025, after both legislative chambers passed it on February 27, 2025.

SF 127 was initially introduced on January 21, 2025, as a REINS-style state law, requiring legislative approval of major rules before they can take effect. The Senate amended the bill in early February 2025 to allow legislative disapproval of major rules after they take effect, weakening the legislative oversight provided for in the bill.

Arizona voters defeat ballot measure to establish REINS-style oversight of agency rulemaking (2024)

Voters in Arizona defeated a ballot measure on November 5, 2024, related to legislative oversight of agency rulemaking.

The measure, Proposition 315, would have required legislative ratification of proposed rules estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 over five years before they could take effect. The measure was defeated by a vote of 53.2% - 46.8%, according to votes counted as of November 8, 2024.

Four Republican senators and three Republican representatives introduced the 2024 measure as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012 (SCR 1012) on January 23. The Senate passed it 16-13 on February 22 in a party-line vote. The House passed it 31-29 on June 12, also along party lines.

The measures' opponents argued, "It undermines the autonomy of state agencies by shifting accountability for spending from the governor's and state attorney's offices to the legislature." Supporters of the measure argued it would return "legislative powers to the legislature and, by extension, to The People of Arizona."[20][21]

The ballot measure contained provisions modeled after the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act—a federal legislative proposal designed to increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking. Proposition 315 marks the first attempt to use a ballot measure to enact REINS-style provisions in a state.

The Arizona State Legislature passed nearly identical REINS-style state laws in 2023 and 2024. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed both bills. The legislature would have required a two-thirds vote to override the governor's veto. Republicans hold a 53% majority in the Senate and a 52% majority in the House.

Arizona governor vetoes REINS-style state law (2024)

Arizona lawmakers on April 10, 2024, again sent a state-level version of the REINS Act to Governor Katie Hobbs' (D) desk.

This bill would require the state legislature to ratify any state agency rule that, according to the text, is "estimated to increase regulatory costs in this state by more that $500,000 within five years after implementation" before the rule can take effect. This bill was sponsored by Senators Anthony Kern (R), Jake Hoffman (R), Wendy Rogers (R), and Justine Wadsack (R), along with state Representatives Laurin Hendrix (R), Rachel Jones (R), Alexander Kolodin (R), and Austin Smith (R).[22][23]

The state House voted 31-28 and the state Senate voted 16-10 to approve the bill along party lines. Governor Hobbs vetoed the bill on April 16, 2024.[24]

Arizona governor vetoes REINS-style state law (2023)

Arizona lawmakers on May 15, 2023, sent a state-level version of the REINS Act to Governor Katie Hobbs’ (D) desk.

The Arizona bill, sponsored by state Representative Justin Wilmeth (R), would require the state legislature to ratify any state agency rule that, according to the text, is “estimated to increase regulatory costs or have an adverse impact on economic growth in the state by $500,000 or more within 5 years” before the rule can take effect.

The state House voted 31-27 and the state Senate voted 16-14 to approve the bill along party lines. Governor Hobbs vetoed the bill on May 19, 2023.[25]

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds enforcement of state REINS Act (2019)

On November 20, 2017, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit against Tony Evers, the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, alleging that Evers and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) were in violation of the state's REINS Act. WILL’s lawsuit was filed as an original action with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment ordering Superintendent Evers to comply with the state REINS Act. WILL filed its suit on behalf of two school board members and two public school teachers.[26][27][28]

On April 13, 2018, the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced its decision to hear WILL's case against Evers and DPI.[29] In preliminary oral arguments on May 15, 2018, the court considered whether or not Superintendent Evers can select his own legal representation in the case or must be represented by the state attorney general and Department of Justice as ordered by Governor Scott Walker (R).[30][31] It ruled that Evers could choose his own lawyers in the case on June 27, 2018.[32]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on April 10, 2019.[33] On June 25, 2019, the court ruled that the state superintendent must follow the REINS Act and submit new rules to the governor before they can go into effect.[34] The court held that the Wisconsin Constitution allows the state REINS Act to apply to the DPI because the power to make rules is legislative and controlled by the legislature.[34] For more information about this case, see this page.


See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Regulations proposed by multi-member boards or commissions require a two-thirds vote of the commission for rules that cost $1 million or more over five years; a unanimous vote for rules that cost $10 million or more over five years
  2. ↑ This requirement does not apply if the legislative fiscal office determines that the fiscal or economic impact of the proposed action is less than or equal to the amount accounted for in the fiscal note for legislation that required the action.
  3. ↑ Regulations exceeding the fiscal threshold can take effect without approval from the appropriate committee if the committee doesn't hold a hearing within 30 days of receiving a report of the regulation and the governor authorizes it in writing.
  4. ↑ Note: Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed House Bill 2728. Gov. Stitt let Senate Bill 995 go into law without his signature.
  5. ↑ Note: Senate Bill 995 (2025) required all rules to be approved by the legislature, not only rules that were above the major rule threshold of $1 million over five years.
  6. ↑ West Virginia Code, "§29A-3-9. Proposal of legislative rules." accessed July 26, 2024
  7. ↑ FGA, "Why the REINS Act?" December 9, 2022
  8. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ Cato Institute, "Taking the REINS of the Administrative State," Fall 2024
  10. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Legislative veto," accessed September 18, 2018
  11. ↑ Wyoming Legislature, "SF0127 - Administrative rules-legislative review," accessed March 17, 2025
  12. ↑ They include legislation that is related to REINS-style state laws, but does not fit Ballotpedia's definition.
  13. ↑ Kentucky Legislature, "House Bill 6," accessed April 8, 2025
  14. ↑ Utah Legislature, "House Bill 474," accessed April 14, 2025
  15. ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 2728," accessed May 28, 2025
  16. ↑ 'Oklahoma State Legislature, "House Bill 995," accessed May 28, 2025
  17. ↑ BillTrack50, "LA SB59," accessed June 20, 2025
  18. ↑ North Carolina State Legislature, "HB402," accessed July 29, 2025
  19. ↑ Legiscan, "Pennsylvania Senate Bill 333," accessed June 13, 2025
  20. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Arguments 'Against' Proposition 315," accessed November 8, 2024
  21. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Arguments 'For' Proposition 315," accessed November 8, 2024
  22. ↑ accessed August 22, 2024
  23. ↑ "Arizona Senate Bill 1153," accessed August 22, 2024
  24. ↑ "Bill History for SB1153," accessed August 22, 2024
  25. ↑ AZ Leg. Website, "Bill History for HB2254," accessed June 29, 2023
  26. ↑ Watchdog.org, "Conservative group sues Department of Public Instruction for violating the REINS Act," November 20, 2017
  27. ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "WILL Challenges DPI's Rule-Making Authority," November 20, 2017
  28. ↑ CBS 58, "Lawsuit filed against Evers over handling of education policies," November 20, 2017
  29. ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Supreme Court takes up Department of Public Instruction case again," April 14, 2018
  30. ↑ Star Tribune, "Wisconsin attorneys urge court to let them represent Evers," May 15, 2018
  31. ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Scott Walker vs. Tony Evers: The governor and a Democratic challenger go before the Supreme Court," May 15, 2018
  32. ↑ State Bar of Wisconsin, "Supreme Court Says State Superintendent of Schools Can Choose Counsel," June 27, 2018
  33. ↑ Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Table of Pending Cases, April 2, 2019," accessed April 5, 2019
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Kristi Koschkee et al. v. Carolyn Stanford Taylor," June 25, 2019
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=REINS-style_state_laws&oldid=10495906"