The Trump administration’s move to expedite regulatory repeals using the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception is raising concerns within both legal and business communities. On February 19, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at dismantling what he described as the “overbearing and burdensome administrative state.” A subsequent memorandum urged federal agencies to quickly repeal any “facially unlawful” regulations without traditional notice-and-comment procedures.
This approach cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which removed Chevron deference as a key justification. However, legal experts warn that broadly applying this narrow exception could lead to legal challenges, especially as courts typically do not defer to an agency’s rationale for using the good cause exception unless adequately justified.
Legal professionals have noted the potential risks of this expedited approach. Under the APA, any rule repeal constitutes a form of rulemaking that typically requires notice-and-comment procedures, a requirement seemingly brushed aside by the administration’s directive. The good cause exception traditionally addresses urgent matters like emergency health or safety standards, but its utilization in this case is seen as stretching its original intent. Courts have previously interpreted this exception in a narrow manner.
Concerns also revolve around compliance uncertainty if agencies proceed with these rapid repeals. Regulated entities might find themselves caught between choosing adherence to abandoned regulations or risking non-compliance penalties should future administrations revive enforcement. The situation poses a compounding threat, as legal challenges could successfully block repeals deemed “arbitrary and capricious” without a grounded explanation—particularly if they defy existing judicial interpretations or Loper Bright‘s ruling.
As the administration sets the stage for numerous regulatory reversals, it is paving a contentious path. While aimed at loosening federal regulatory constraints, this pursuit may paradoxically expose agencies to legal vulnerabilities and regulated industries to operational unpredictability.