South Dakota REINS-style state law

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a REINS-style state law?

REINS-style state laws refer to state laws in the spirit of the federal Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act that require legislative approval of proposed state agency rules with associated costs in excess of a certain monetary threshold. REINS-style state laws aim to give state legislators the preemptive authority to halt the initial enactment of certain administrative regulations.

Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
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.


The South Dakota REINS-style state law (SB 133) is a REINS-style state law enacted by the South Dakota State Legislature on March 12, 2026 that requires legislative approval of rules with implementation and compliance costs of $3 million over a two-year period.[1]

REINS-style state laws refer to state laws in the spirit of the federal Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. These laws require legislative approval of proposed state agency rules that carry associated costs in excess of a certain monetary threshold.

The South Dakota REINS Act includes the following provision:[1]

“

For a major rule, the Interim Rules Review Committee may: (1) Revert the rule to an earlier step in the rule adoption procedure to permit consideration of an amendment to the proposed rule that would no longer make it a major rule; (2) Determine there is sufficient legislative authority for the agency to implement the proposed rule and declare the rulemaking process complete; or (3) Recommend that the rule be brought as future legislation, and that the Legislature vote to enact or not to enact the legislation.[2]

”

Background

See also: Rulemaking, REINS Act

The federal REINS Act, which the South Dakota state version was modeled on, was initially designed by Tea Party activist Lloyd Rogers in 2009. Rogers contacted former U.S. Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) to propose legislation requiring that "all rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local government financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective." The proposal was incorporated into the Republican Party's Pledge to America legislative agenda leading up to the 2010 election cycle and was later introduced as legislation. It has since been introduced in the 112th Congress (2011-2013) through the 118th Congress (2023-2025).[3][4]

REINS-style state laws are modeled on the proposed federal-level REINS Act, and 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.

Legislative history

The South Dakota REINS Act was introduced into the South Dakota Senate on January 26, 2026 as Senate Bill (HB) 133. The bill passed the Senate on February 24, 2026, and advanced through the South Dakota House of Representatives on March 3, 2026. It was sent to Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) on March 9, 2026, and signed on March 12, 2026.[5]

Below is an abbreviated timeline of the legislative history of the Kansas REINS Act:[1]

Provisions

The sections below contain a series of quotes explaining the major provisions of the law, according to the text of the law. The quotes outline the requirement for a prospective rule exceeding the cost threshold to be reviewed by the Legislature's Interim Rules Review Committee (IRRC), and for the IRRC to recommend one of three courses of action.[5]

Major rules to be reviewed by IRRC

The following section outlines the law's definition of a "major rule," and its requirement for prospective major rules to be reviewed by the IRRC:

“

(5) "Major rule," any proposed rule that is to have or is likely to have more than $3,000,000 in implementation and compliance costs incurred by or passed along to businesses, individuals, other nongovernmental entities, and units of local government as a result of the rule, over the two-year period following adoption of the rule; [2]

”
“

The Interim Rules Review Committee... shall review all proposed agency rules and make recommendations to the agencies regarding rules and legislation authorizing rules, and to the Legislature regarding administrative law. In its review of agency rules, the committee shall consider the regulatory impact analysis provided pursuant to section 5 of this Act and the resulting review of code counsel and Legislative Research Council personnel. [2]

”

IRRC may recommend reducing cost below 'major threshold,' determine preexisting legislative authority, or recommend legislative vote

The following section outlines the three options that the law permits the IRRC to adopt when reviewing a prospective rule:

“

For a major rule, the Interim Rules Review Committee may:

(1) Revert the rule to an earlier step in the rule adoption procedure to permit consideration of an amendment to the proposed rule that would no longer make it a major rule;

(2) Determine there is sufficient legislative authority for the agency to implement the proposed rule and declare the rulemaking process complete; or

(3) Recommend that the rule be brought as future legislation, and that the Legislature vote to enact or not to enact the legislation.

If the agency proposing the major rule seeks to amend the rule for the Interim Rules Review Committee's reconsideration, the agency must submit an updated regulatory impact analysis to the commissioner of the Bureau of Finance and Management, code counsel, and the Interim Rules Review Committee, at least twenty days prior to the committee hearing at which the rule is to be reconsidered.

Any proposed rule addressed pursuant to this section must be reported to the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council annually prior to the regular session.

Any legislation seeking to enact the substance of any proposed rule addressed pursuant to this section, whether in statute or as directed via the permanent rulemaking process, must be denoted as having substance that was previously brought before the Interim Rules Review Committee as a major rule, and whether or not the Interim Rules Review Committee recommended enactment of that substance. [2]

”

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 South Dakota Legislature, "SB 133," accessed March 13, 2026
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ The Jackson Sun, "We were never closer to seeing REINS Act become law," January 4, 2017
  4. ↑ Boston Herald, "Smith: Congress can regain power with REINS," January 6, 2017
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named HB133
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=South_Dakota_REINS-style_state_law&oldid=11118042"