For decades, North Carolinians have elected lawmakers to write our laws. But somewhere along the way, unelected bureaucrats began doing it instead.
Good evening,
For decades, North Carolinians have elected lawmakers to write our laws. But somewhere along the way, unelected bureaucrats began doing it instead—quietly passing rules with massive price tags and no direct accountability. That’s about to change.
This week, the state Senate is advancing a major regulatory reform: House Bill 402 - Limit Rules With Substantial Financial Costs - which cleared the Senate Regulatory Reform Committee on June 4, and passed the full Senate today. This bill is sometimes called the REINS Act, with REINS as an acronym for “Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny.”
The REINS Act tackles a fundamental problem: state agencies are writing rules with huge financial impacts, sometimes in the tens of millions of dollars, without voter oversight.
Here’s what the bill does:
Any rule projected to cost $20 million or more over five years must be approved by the General Assembly.
Rules costing $10 million or more must be passed by unanimous vote of the board or commission proposing it.
Rules costing $1 million or more require a two-thirds vote of the board of commission.
And for all major rules, agencies must provide a comprehensive cost analysis to justify the financial burden on the public.
This is common sense. If a rule is going to cost North Carolinians millions, the people’s representatives—not bureaucrats—should have the final say. After all, Article II, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution is clear: “The legislative power of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly.”
The REINS Act is modeled after similar legislation in Congress, but North Carolina is taking the lead in making it real. The bill restores the constitutional principle that the power to make laws belong to the legislature, not to the administrative state.
At Locke, we’ve long argued (see 2013 and 2015) that unchecked rulemaking undermines both economic freedom and democratic accountability. The REINS Act is a necessary and welcome step in the right direction.
On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled against the legality of some of President Trump's tariff orders
They found he lacked the legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
The CIT decision was stayed by an appeals court on May 29, meaning the tariffs remain in place, pending an appeal
The cases were brought by small businesses (V.O.S. Selections v. United States) and 12 states (Oregon v. United States)
The government argued the court could not review the President's assertion that his IEEPA use addressed an "unusual and extraordinary threat", due to the "political question doctrine"
The CIT panel deemed this argument "misplaced," arguing a case isn't beyond judicial review just because it has a political aspect
Another aspect of the case that some note is that the challenged tariff orders be "vacated and their operation permanently enjoined"
While there is plenty to criticize about the abuse of universal injunctions, this is a different case
Because it's based on a specific constitutional mandate: the "Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which requires all duties, imposts, and excises to be uniform throughout the United States (including tariffs)
The court reasoned that if the tariffs were unlawful for the plaintiffs, they were unlawful for everyone, due to this uniformity requirement
Notably, this unanimous decision came from judges appointed by presidents from both parties, including a Trump appointee
This ruling represents a significant constraint on presidential overreach and a reinforcement of Congress's primary role in enacting trade policy
While a federal court rightfully rejected Griffin’s argument for changes ex post facto to North Carolina election law, it did allow state Supreme Court rulings to apply to future elections
Though initially focused on "never residents" and voter ID requirements for military and overseas ballots, the case has broader implications for North Carolina election policy beyond these three specific issues
A core aspect of the Griffin case involved whether Article 20 (general absentee mail ballots) and Article 21A (military and overseas voting) of North Carolina law are interconnected, or should be read separately
According to Gerry Cohen, former legislative drafting director for the North Carolina General Assembly, the 2013 recodification to Article 21A aimed to separate overseas voting rules, to comply with federal UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) rules
However, the North Carolina Supreme Court interpreted these two chapters as directly connected…
… Suggesting witness signature requirements from Article 20 could apply to overseas voters, potentially creating conflicts with federal UOCAVA rules
Specifically, UOCAVA prohibits notary requirements for its voters, though it does not explicitly ban state witness requirements
Very few states (Alabama, Alaska, Wisconsin) currently require signatures for federal write-in ballots
Implementing witness requirements for electronically submitted overseas ballots would be difficult, potentially requiring digital signatures and opening up a cybersecurity can of worms
The state legislature should clarify witness requirements for overseas voters, and address other potential issues arising from the established connection between Article 20 and Article 21A, to prevent future lawsuits like the Griffin case
So-called “assault weapons” have long been a target of gun control legislation
The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller should have put a stop to such legislation
But many states have enacted new laws banning assault weapons in the years after Heller, and many federal courts have upheld those laws
In Snope v. Brown, plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision to uphold an assault weapons ban, and in a disappointing decision, it declined to do so
Though Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the Court should, and presumably will, address the AR-15 issue soon, I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas, who said:
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.”
