Legislative Veto of Administrative Rules
An administrative rule is typically a regulation, standard or policy issued by an executive agency to implement statutory provisions administered by the agency. Although state legislatures have delegated that authority to executive agencies, they have carefully protected their authority to review and, in most instances, approve administrative rules to ensure that they comply with statutory authority and legislative intent. If the legislature determines that a rule does not comply with those two thresholds, it may be empowered by constitutional provision or statute to veto the rule.
Forty-one states have some type of authority to review administrative rules, although not all of them have the power to veto rules. In the states that have veto authority, the action may be required through enactment of a statute (13 states) or passage of a resolution (15 states). State courts have heard challenges to legislative veto of administrative rules in at least 11 states, with all but two ruling that the power—or the process being used—was unconstitutional. Court decisions in Idaho and Missouri illustrate the differing perspectives.
In Mead v. Arnell, 791 P.2d 410 (Idaho 1990), the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the authority of the legislature to veto administrative rules through passage of a resolution that did not require the governor's signature. The court determined that only the legislature can make laws and that administrative rules have a lesser status than statutory law, thereby allowing a statute that authorized a veto through legislative resolution to stand.
In Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, 948 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. 1997), the Missouri Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a statute that suspended agency rules pending review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. The court determined that the legislature "may not unilaterally control execution of rulemaking authority after its delegation of rulemaking power," requiring it to pass a bill for the governor's signature if it chose to alter a rule.
- Mitchell, Charlotte A. The North Carolina Rules Review Commission: A Constitutional Quandary, 82 N.C.L. Rev. 2092 (2004).
- Oversight and Insight: Legislative Review of Agencies and Lessons from the States, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 613 (2007).
- Rossi, Jim. Institutional Design and the Lingering Legacy of Antifederalist Separation of Powers Ideals in the States, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 1167 (1999).
 Separation of Powers
|
