Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].

On April 11, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a notice of request for information (RFI), soliciting “ideas for deregulation from across the country.” Written comments from the public can be submitted here until Monday, May 12, 2025.

OMB asks commenters to help inform deregulation efforts by identifying “any and all” regulations “currently in effect” that should be rescinded or replaced.

Specifically, OMB is looking for regulations that are “unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound” and that “stifle American businesses and American ingenuity.” As the RFI explains, “Americans are the most inventive, hardworking, and industrious people in the world,” but “[f]or too long,” “onerous and unnecessary regulations” have stunted “American dynamism and creativity.”

OMB is particularly interested in regulations:

  • “that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution,”
  • “where costs exceed benefits,”
  • “where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary,” or
  • “where regulation is burdening American businesses in unforeseen ways.”

The RFI directs commenters to provide background of the regulation and “detailed reasons” for why it should be rescinded.

The RFI also mentions that commenters can submit recommendations on the “Submit Your Deregulatory Recommendations” portal located on the regulations.gov homepage. This portal, which is not tied to the RFI’s May 12 comment deadline, allows the public to share “ideas for cutting existing rules or regulations” by completing an online form. Like the RFI, the form asks for high-level background of the regulation (including “the current state of the regulation, how it operates, and its history”) and “as much detail as possible” on the reasons for why it should be rescinded. The form suggests that “[p]ossible reasons for rescission include, but are not limited to: (1) the regulation is inconsistent with a statute; (2) the regulation is inconsistent with the Constitution; (3) the regulation’s costs outweigh its benefits; (4) the regulation no longer reflects the current state of technology; or (5) the regulation is bad policy, unreasoned, or unsound.”

OMB’s RFI and the portal align with President Trump’s deregulation initiative and executive actions directing agencies to minimize regulatory burdens on the American public.

Trump’s “10-to-1 Deregulation Initiative”

On January 31, President Trump issued an executive order on “unleashing prosperity through deregulation.” As an accompanying White House fact sheet explained, “Overregulation stops American entrepreneurship, crushes small business, reduces consumer choice, discourages innovation, and infringes on the liberties of American citizens.”

The executive order directed federal agencies to identify at least ten existing regulations to eliminate for each new regulation it seeks to promulgate. (During Trump’s first term, it was two-to-one.)

“Regulation” or “rule” is defined broadly to mean “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.” This includes “regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders, guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements.” But it does not include regulations related to “a military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration-related function” or “agency organization, management, or personnel.”

Executive Order on Lawful Governance and Rescinding Regulations

Implementing the deregulation initiative, President Trump’s February 19 executive order sought to “ensure lawful governance” by “rescinding unlawful regulations and regulations that undermine the national interest.”

The order flagged seven “classes” of regulations, specifically those that:

  1. are unconstitutional or “raise serious constitutional difficulties,” like exceeding federal power;
  2. “are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power”;
  3. are not based on “the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition”;
  4. are “not authorized by clear statutory authority” and “implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance”;
  5. “impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits”;
  6. “harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives”; and
  7. “impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.”

Agencies are directed to identify regulations in the above classes and develop a plan to rescind or modify the regulations.

Presidential Memo on Repealing Unlawful Regulations

On April 9, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum implementing the February 19 executive order. The memo requires agencies to prioritize repealing regulations that are unlawful under ten recent Supreme Court decisions: 

  1. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
  2. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
  3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
  4. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
  5. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
  6. Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
  7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
  8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
  9. Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
  10. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020).

An accompanying White House Fact Sheet provides more detail about the controlling legal principles and authorities in these “watershed” cases. These include the demise of the Chevron doctrine, the Major Questions Doctrine, cost-benefit analysis under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Seventh Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and “equal treatment of religious institutions vis-à-vis secular institutions.”

The memo contemplates that “facially unlawful regulations” can be “immediately” repealed without advance notice and comment consistent with the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act, which does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking when it would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Retaining and enforcing such regulations “is clearly contrary to the public interest,” and notice and comment is “‘unnecessary’ where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court.”

Editor's note: This post has been updated to reflect the fact that commenters can submit their comments via an alternative method.