Reform proposals related to the administrative state and federalism
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| 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. |
This page explores reform proposals related to the administrative state and federalism. Ballotpedia groups these into three categories: state oversight of federal regulations, state oversight of local regulations, and federal oversight of state regulations.
The administrative state refers to executive agencies that make and enforce rules. These include both federal agencies—like the EPA or HHS, which operate nationwide—and state agencies, which administer state laws and often implement federally funded programs. These agencies shape public policy through rulemaking, enforcement, and managing public funds.
Federalism is the division of power between the national government and the states. It determines who controls regulations, how funding is distributed, and who enforces public policy. Reforms in this area often aim to clarify or shift this balance—by adjusting who writes rules, who pays for programs, or who enforces compliance.
Local-level federalism refers to how states delegate authority to cities, counties, and special districts. These local governments often regulate zoning, public health, and education. For related proposals, see: State oversight of local regulations.
This article contains the following sections:
- State oversight of federal regulations: These reforms strengthen the authority of state officials—especially governors, legislators, and attorneys general—to monitor, contest, or influence federal agency actions that affect state policy or funding.
- State executive oversight: Proposals to enhance the role of state executives in reviewing and responding to federal agency activity and managing the use of federal funds within the state.
- State legislative oversight: Reforms that ensure state legislatures retain control over how federal regulations and federal funding are implemented within the state.
- State agency review of federal rules: Measures that give state officials more tools to oversee or resist federal rules that affect state programs and operations.
- State oversight of local regulations: These reforms define how state governments supervise or limit the regulatory authority of local governments, including through preemption and local agency accountability.
- Mandate funding and preemption: Proposals requiring reimbursement for unfunded mandates and restricting the ability of local ordinances to exceed state-level regulatory limits.
- Regulatory review and accountability: These proposals introduce checks on local lawmaking to improve transparency and reduce regulatory burden.
- Federal oversight of state regulations: These reforms address how federal agencies supervise or influence state policymaking—especially through grants, mandates, or regulatory preemption.
State oversight of federal regulations
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
This section focuses on reforms that assert state control over federal policy implementation. These efforts aim to strengthen state sovereignty by empowering state officials to monitor federal regulations, improve fiscal accountability, and challenge federal actions that conflict with state priorities.
State executive oversight
These reforms expand the authority of governors and state attorneys general to represent state interests in the federal regulatory process and defend state autonomy.
Strengthen gubernatorial oversight of federal grant implementation
This proposal increases the governor's authority to oversee how federal grants are administered within the state, aligning with state priorities and maintaining accountability.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has proposed model legislation that would give governors direct control over federal grant applications submitted within their states. They propose, "No grant shall be submitted to the grant-making entity for application unless the Governor provides written consent. At the Governor’s discretion, he or she may allow the grant applicant to revise and resubmit the grant application for the Governor’s reconsideration."[1]
Authorize governors to challenge federal overreach
This reform empowers top state executives to push back when federal agencies exceed their legal bounds—especially in areas traditionally regulated by states.
- Utah HB 488 (2025) allows the Federalism Commission to recommend that the governor call a special session and facilitates multistate collaboration—supporting both executive and legal challenges to federal administrative actions.[2]
Authorize state attorneys general to contest federal actions that infringe on state sovereignty
This reform empowers attorneys general to file legal challenges against federal regulations that interfere with state authority.
- One notable example of state attorneys general challenging federal overreach comes from the Harvard Law Review, which argues: “The success of State attorneys general in obtaining a Supreme Court stay against the Clean Power Plan is one of the singular achievements of modern separation-of-powers and federalism litigation. ... A twenty-seven-State coalition, led by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, sued to stop the Plan and asked the United States Supreme Court to stay the Plan during the litigation. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the States, staying the rule in a historic, 5-4 stay.”[3]
- Elbert Lin, a former Solicitor General of West Virginia, in a University of Richmond Law Review article argues that "At a very high level, I believe state-led litigation against the federal government is valuable. Our system of dual sovereignty is critical to the preservation of individual freedom. As the United States Supreme Court has said, 'freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.' 'By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.' But that system depends on states being willing to push back on federal overreach and on the federal government respecting the states as separate sovereigns."[4]
- Utah HB 488 (2025) states, "The attorney general may file suit on behalf of the state challenging any federal regulation impacted by Chevron deference."[2]
State legislative oversight
These proposals ensure that state legislatures retain fiscal and regulatory control in the face of federal influence, particularly through grant conditions, agency rulemaking, and mandates that affect state implementation.
Create dedicated state legislative committees to review federal rules
These reform proposals call for formal legislative structures to monitor federal agency actions and assert state authority. These proposals aim to institutionalize legislative review of federal rules through standing committees or commissions with evaluation, reporting, and coordination duties.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) proposed creating Joint Committees of Administrative Rules (JCARs) in a 2018 model state Administrative Procedures Act.[5] These bipartisan legislative committees would review federal rules before implementation and could void them for any of the following reasons:
- Lack of statutory authority
- Emergency conditions relating to health, safety, or welfare
- Conflict with legislative intent or procedural failures
- Conflict with state law
- Arbitrariness and capriciousness
- Failure to document consideration of public comments
- Utah HB 488 (2025) bill expands the legislature’s Federalism Commission and empowers it to evaluate federal laws, report to legislative committees, and coordinate with other states—effectively creating a standing legislative body to assess federal agency actions.[2]
Require legislative approval before state agencies accept or use federal funds
This reform requires that any federal funds received by state agencies be subject to prior approval by the state legislature, preserving legislative authority over fiscal decisions tied to federal programs.
Require legislatures to receive a formal accounting of the costs of federal grant implementation
This reform requires state legislatures to receive detailed estimates of how much federal programs cost state and local governments.
- The Pelican Institute, a free-market think tank based in Louisiana, recommends that "State leaders should coordinate across executive and legislative branches of government to jointly plan for and actively monitor the use of federal funds and how federal requirements are being addressed—not just as a compliance exercise, but to reveal federal requirements that may conflict with state priorities and policies. State legislatures should play a more active role in consulting with state agencies about applying for and receiving federal funds, as well as planning for sustainability of funded activities and services if needed."[6]
State agency review of federal rules
This section focuses on how state agencies (not federal agencies) evaluate and respond to federal regulations—especially in light of recent changes to judicial deference doctrines like Chevron.
Review federal rules in light of post-Chevron legal shifts
This reform would require state agencies to regularly assess whether federal regulations remain legally binding or advisable following changes in judicial deference doctrines.
- Utah HB 470 (2024) provides state agencies with guidance on reviewing and identifying federal rules that may be vulnerable to challenge.[7]
Conduct comparative analysis before adopting federal-like rules
This proposal mandates that agencies submit reports comparing how other states regulate similar issues before adopting or reissuing rules modeled after federal standards. The goal is to ensure regulatory alignment with state interests, not just federal conformity.
State oversight of local regulations
This category covers reforms that define how state governments oversee, limit, or shape the regulatory powers of local governments. These proposals focus on maintaining statewide consistency, protecting local governments from unfunded mandates, and promoting fiscal and procedural accountability in local lawmaking.
Mandate funding and preemption
These reforms clarify the financial and legal boundaries between state and local governments.
Reimburse local governments for state or federal mandates
This proposal would require the state to cover the costs imposed on local governments by state or federally mandated programs. It aims to ensure localities are not financially burdened by mandates beyond their control.
Prohibit local ordinances from being more restrictive than state law
This reform proposal ensures consistency across jurisdictions and prevents stricter local regulations from exceeding state requirements.
- The Pacific Legal Fund writes the following about California's building code: "Section 65852.2 provides certainty to homeowners by forbidding local government from imposing rules that are more restrictive than state law and requiring that cities and counties approve applications via a simple over-the-desk process within 60 days of filing."[8]
Regulatory review and accountability
These proposals introduce checks on local lawmaking to improve transparency and reduce regulatory burden.
Conduct economic impact analyses for local ordinances
This reform mandates that local governments conduct formal economic reviews before passing ordinances, ensuring that new rules are cost-justified.
Require state review of high-cost local ordinances
This proposal would require state-level approval for local ordinances expected to impose significant financial costs, adding a layer of fiscal oversight.
Apply sunset clauses to local regulations
This approach sets expiration dates on local regulations, requiring regular review to keep ordinances current, efficient, and responsive to changing conditions.
Federal oversight of state regulations
This section highlights proposals that address how the federal government limits or overrides state regulatory authority—especially through preemption, funding conditions, or administrative control.
- Executive Order: Protecting American Energy From State Overreach (Donald Trump, 2025) restricts states from using environmental permitting laws to block or delay federally approved interstate energy projects, asserting federal supremacy over national energy infrastructure.[9]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, "Draft: Reforming How Federal Grants Are Provided to the State", accessed June 25, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 BillTrack50, "Utah HB488", accessed June 25, 2025
- ↑ Harvard Law Review, "State Attorneys General and the Battle Against Federal Agency Overreach", December 4, 2017
- ↑ University of Richmond Law Review, "Federalism Accountability and Preemption: Lessons from the States", 2008
- ↑ ALEC, "Administrative Procedures Act," accessed September 15, 2020
- ↑ Pelican Institute for Public Policy, "Strings Attached: How Federal Funding Affects State and Local Policies", March 21, 2024
- ↑ Ballotpedia Legislation Tracker, "Utah HB470", accessed June 25, 2025
- ↑ Pacific Legal Foundation, "Still No Place to Live", October 31, 2023
- ↑ White House, "Protecting American Energy From State Overreach", April 8, 2025
