Regulatory mandate
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: State responses to federal mandates
A regulatory mandate, in the context of federalism, refers to a rule where a higher level of government requires a lower government to create a new program, improve an existing program, or otherwise comply with requirements the higher government enacts.[1]
Background
According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), a body created by Congress to monitor the operation of the federal system and recommend improvements from 1959 to 1996, many regulatory mandates came out of an " overall climate of opinion during the 1960s and 1970s [that] favored legislative efforts to deal with an array of social, economic, and environmental problems—though opposition to rising taxes, deficits and federal bureaucracy began to mount by the mid-1970s."[2]
State responses to federal regulatory mandates
State governments have taken a variety of actions to respond to federal mandates. Below is a selection of noteworthy responses to federal regulatory mandates by state governments.
Democratic states drop mask mandates (2022)
Governors in ten states (New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware) announced the week of February 7 that they would be dropping state requirements that people wear masks in public places.[3]
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had not yet changed its recommendations about wearing masks in public to mitigate the risk of COVID-19.[4] CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a press briefing on February 9 that the agency was working on guidance for states to follow to begin relaxing covid mitigation measures but that hospitalizations and death rates are still high.[3]
Eight states sue Biden administration over Central American Minors Program (2022)
Eight states (Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas) joined together to sue the Biden Administration on January 28 over a program called the Central American Minors Program (CAMP). CAMP began in 2014 during the Barack Obama administration and allowed children from certain countries "to reunite with their parents in the U.S. rather than using smugglers to enter the country illegally."[5]
Donald Trump ended CAMP in 2017 and Joe Biden restarted and expanded the program in March 2021. Under the Biden administration's version of CAMP, children could be reunited with legal guardians, not just biological or step-parents, and with parents who have pending asylum cases.[5]
The state attorneys general who sued the Biden administration argued that the president "doesn’t have authority to run the program because it wasn’t approved by Congress" and that "the program places a financial burden on their states because they have to provide services to the children such as education and health care."[5]
Florida, federal government square off over funding school districts with mask mandates (2021)
The Florida State Board of Education on November 16 authorized Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran to challenge the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) cease-and-desist order aimed at preventing the state’s withdrawal of funds from school districts with mask mandates.
The board on August 17 voted to withhold money from the school districts in Alachua and Broward counties in response to the districts’ continued mask mandates despite a prohibition on such mandates by the state Department of Public Health. The withheld funds aimed to align with the monthly salaries of school board members. ED responded by starting a federal grant program to offset the state’s penalties, but Florida countered by withholding state funds equal to the federal grants. A November 5 ruling from a state administrative law judge upholding the health department’s order later brought the school districts into compliance.
ED on October 28 filed a cease-and-desist order with its Division of Administrative Law Judges, arguing that Florida had violated federal law by reducing state funding to districts based on the receipt of federal funds. Corcoran argued that the federal grant program violated state sovereignty and declared his intent to “vigorously defend the state’s authority to control its educational system.”
Alaska governor issues order aiming to defend state sovereignty (2021)
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy (R) on November 2 issued an executive order aiming to defend the state’s sovereignty against what Dunleavy considers to be the Biden administration’s overreach in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
“The Biden Administration has imposed a long list of encroachments against the State of Alaska in attempts to control the health and welfare of Alaskans,” said Dunleavy in a statement. “The recent actions or attempts are threatening the State’s sovereign authority under the 10th Amendment.”
Dunleavy’s order cites Biden administration proposals requiring financial institutions to provide information to the Internal Revenue Service regarding certain private bank accounts, instructing federal law enforcement to monitor parents opposed to school district policies as domestic terrorists, and mandating coronavirus vaccines for federal contractors and certain private businesses.
The order instructs the state attorney general to defend Alaska against such policies in court and prohibits state agencies from furthering “any action by a federal agency that infringes on the constitutional rights of Alaskans.”
Federal mandates by the numbers
- See also: Federalism by the numbers
Total number of federal mandates enacted between 2007 and 2019
The following charts show the total number of federal mandates enacted between 2007 and 2019, including 420 intergovernmental mandates and 790 private-sector mandates.
Total number of intergovernmental mandates enacted between 2007 and 2019
The following charts show the number of intergovernmental mandates enacted each year between 2007 and 2019. There have been a total of 420 mandates enacted within 190 laws.
Total number of private-sector mandates enacted between 2007 and 2019
The following charts show the number of private-sector mandates enacted each year between 2007 and 2019. There have been a total of 790 mandates enacted within 294 laws.
Total number of intergovernmental mandates and private-sector mandates enacted between 2007 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold
The following charts show the number of intergovernmental and private-sector mandates enacted each year between 2007 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold. The statutory threshold for intergovernmental mandates is $50 million annually and the statutory threshold for private-sector mandates is $100 million annually. There have been a total of 15 intergovernmental mandates enacted that exceed $50 million annually and a total of 118 private-sector mandates enacted that exceed $100 million annually.
Total number of intergovernmental mandates enacted between 1996 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold
The following charts show the total number of intergovernmental mandates enacted between 1996 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold according to the topic of the mandate. The statutory threshold for intergovernmental mandates is $50 million annually. The table below also includes the corresponding statutes for each intergovernmental mandate.
Total number of private-sector mandates enacted between 1996 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold
The following charts show the total number of private-sector mandates enacted between 1996 and 2019 that exceed the statutory threshold according to the topic of the mandate. The statutory threshold for private-sector mandates is $100 million annually. The table below also includes the corresponding statutes for each private-sector mandate.
Total number of final regulations with federalism impacts enacted between 1996 and 2020
The following chart shows the total number of final regulations with federalism impacts enacted between 1996 and 2020. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs defines federalism implications as "actions 'that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'"[6]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Law Insider, "Regulatory Mandate definition," accessed August 9, 2021
- ↑ Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Process, Impact And Reform," accessed February 23, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. News & World Report, "States Lead the Way to ‘New Normal’ With Biden Administration Mum on Coronavirus Guidance," February 10, 2022
- ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Democratic States Move Away From Mask Mandates," February 8. 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Texas Tribune, "Texas sues Biden administration to halt program that reunites Central American children with parents in U.S.," January 28, 2022
- ↑ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, accessed February 17, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
