The Trump mob has told us that they are cutting through “red tape” and “government regulations.”
There’s a process for tossing out or modifying regulations.
- First, there must be a FACTUAL basis for changing the regulations. You can’t toss out a regulation because you don’t like it. You must have a valid reason to change the regulation.
- Next, before a regulation can be changed, the new regulation must be published in the Federal Register after which there is a 90-day period in which the public can comment.
- Then, comments and facts must be considered before a new regulation is proposed.
Turns out, the Trump crowd has been simply claiming they are tossing out regulations – “promises made, promises kept.”
Furthermore, it turns out that Trump regulatory changes have been challenged in the courts. When regulations are changed, it’s not unusual for a suit to challenge the change. The Dept of Justice defends the government position. In previous administrations, the administration has won 70% of these cases. Trump has won 6% of his cases . . . because the courts have discovered that Trump is simply declarinig a regulation to be bad, changing it, throwing it out, and doing whatever they want . . . and the courts are ruling against Trump. On top of that, DOJ is refusing to appeal these losses.
Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.
In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input.
Many of the cases are in early stages and subject to reversal. For example, the Supreme Court permitted a version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations to take effect after lower-court judges blocked the travel ban as discriminatory.
But regardless of whether the administration ultimately prevails, the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement far-reaching changes in policy without regard for long-standing rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior.
. . .
The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.