Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Utah 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 Utah REINS-style state law (House Bill 474) is a REINS-style state law that was signed into law by Kansas Gov. Spencer Cox (R) that requires

  • statutory authorization of rules with implementation and compliance costs of $2 million or more over a five-year period, and
  • legislative review for rules with implementation and compliance costs of $1 million or more over a five-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 Utah REINS Act includes the following provision:[1]

“

(13) (a) (i) Before an agency enacts a rule, the agency shall submit to the appropriations subcommittee and interim committee with jurisdiction over the agency the agency's proposed rule for review, if the proposed rule, over a five-year period, has a fiscal impact of more than $1,000,000 statewide. [2]

”

Background

See also: Rulemaking, REINS Act

The federal REINS Act, which the Utah 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]

Legislative history

The Regulatory Oversight Amendments Act was introduced into the Utah House of Representatives on February 11, 2025, by the House Rules Committee as House Bill (HB) 474. The bill passed the House on February 27, 2025, and advanced through the Senate with amendments on March 5, 2025. The final version of the bill, after reconciliation, was approved by both the Utah State Senate and Utah House of Representatives on March 7, 2025. It was sent to Gov. Spencer Cox (R) on March 13, 2025, and signed into law on March 27, 2025.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title

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

Provisions

The sections below contain a series of quotes explaining the major provisions of the law, based on the text of the bill. The quotes outline changes that affect the process for adopting administrative rules and regulations, including new legislative oversight requirements for rules with significant fiscal impact.

Legislative oversight

HB 474 requires agencies to submit proposed rules for legislative review if the rules are projected to have a statewide fiscal impact of more than $1 million over five years. These rules must be reviewed by the relevant appropriations subcommittee and interim committee before they can be enacted, unless exempted.[1]

“

(13) (a) (i) Before an agency enacts a rule, the agency shall submit to the appropriations subcommittee and interim committee with jurisdiction over the agency the agency's proposed rule for review, if the proposed rule, over a five-year period, has a fiscal impact of more than $1,000,000 statewide. [2]

”

Substantial fiscal impact

The bill defines "substantial fiscal impact" as a projected cost of at least $2 million over five years. Agencies may not adopt rules with this level of impact unless necessary to implement a statute or fulfill a duty delegated by the federal government.[1]

“

63G-3-102 (22) "Substantial fiscal impact" means an anticipated fiscal impact of a proposed rule of at least $2,000,000 over a five-year period.

63G-3-301 (13) (d)The agency shall calculate the substantial fiscal impact in accordance with Subsection (5). (e) Unless an agency cannot implement a statute or execute a federally delegated authority without making a rule that is estimated to have substantial fiscal impact, the agency may not make the rule. [2]

”

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Utah State Legislature, "H.B. 474 Regulatory Oversight Amendments", accessed May 19, 2025
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 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
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=Utah_REINS-style_state_law&oldid=10420347"