Amy Orlov
89 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1306
In 2019, Professors Robert L. Glicksman and Emily Hammond of The George Washington University Law School examined the Trump Administration’s early regulatory behavior during the first half of Donald Trump’s presidency. In their article, The Administrative Law of Regulatory Slop and Strategy, published in The Duke Law Journal, they observed that the Trump administration produced an unprecedented volume of agency actions that flouted settled administrative law doctrine and norms—a phenomenon that they term “regulatory slop.” Professors Glicksman and Hammond concluded their article by hoping for a change in the Administration’s behavior and insisting on a strong judicial response through corrective remedies to ensure that “regulatory slop” does not become the norm. This Essay expands upon Professors Glicksman’s and Hammond’s article by examining the Trump Administration’s regulatory actions during Donald Trump’s final two years in office and over the course of his entire presidency. Through analyzing the Administration’s regulatory actions, this Essay seeks to answer the question: Following Donald Trump’s entire presidency, has administrative law substantially changed? This Essay examines the Trump Administration’s compliance with notice-and-comment requirements, effective and compliance dates, reason-giving and fact-finding requirements, statutory interpretation doctrines, and separation-of-powers principles. Following this analysis, this Essay argues that the Trump Administration continued to defy established administrative law doctrine and engaged in “regulatory slop” in almost all identified areas of concern. Due to strong responses from the judicial branch as evidenced by numerous cases throughout the nation, the Trump Administration’s “regulatory slop” has not substantially changed the administrative state.
