Crowd-sourced participation in administrative policymaking
š What is Crowd-Sourced Participation?
Traditionally, agencies followed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process:
Publish proposed rules
Public gets to submit written comments
Agency reviews, then finalizes the rule
Crowd-sourced participation goes beyond that, using:
Online notice-and-comment portals (e.g., Regulations.gov)
Social media or digital forums for feedback
Interactive data visualizations for transparency
Open-source drafting or surveys to shape policy direction
š Legal Foundation
| Legal Framework | Description |
|---|---|
| APA (5 U.S.C. Ā§ 553) | Requires public participation in rulemaking (notice & comment) |
| E-Government Act (2002) | Pushes agencies to use internet technologies for transparency |
| Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) | Allows structured public input through committees |
| OMB Circular A-130 | Encourages citizen engagement through digital means |
š§āāļø Case Law (More Than Five Key Cases)
These cases clarify how courts handle public participation, including crowd-sourced input, comment quality, and agency obligations.
ā 1. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Citizens challenged a highway project that ignored community input.
Issue: Must agencies give serious weight to public concerns in policy decisions?
Holding: Yes ā agencies must provide a record showing reasoned decision-making that includes public input.
Significance: Landmark in requiring meaningful consideration of public contributions, laying groundwork for robust participatory rulemaking.
ā 2. Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC (1977)
D.C. Circuit
Facts: The FCC held informal discussions with industry players while rulemaking was underway ā excluding public voices.
Issue: Did private consultations violate open public participation principles?
Holding: Yes. All communications relevant to rulemaking must be on the record and open to the public.
Significance: Promoted transparency and equal access to policymaking.
ā 3. American Radio Relay League v. FCC (2008)
D.C. Circuit
Facts: FCC issued a rule on broadband power lines and redacted technical data during the public comment period.
Issue: Did the FCC violate APA by limiting access to data the public needed to comment meaningfully?
Holding: Yes. Public input must be based on full and fair access to the evidence behind rules.
Significance: Emphasized that agencies must ensure public can engage effectively, especially when rules are technical or complex.
ā 4. United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp. (1977)
Second Circuit
Facts: FDA adopted a fish-processing rule without responding to scientific concerns from public commenters.
Issue: Can an agency ignore substantive, expert public input in final rules?
Holding: No ā the FDA violated APA by failing to respond to material objections.
Significance: Key precedent for requiring agencies to seriously consider crowd-sourced expertise.
ā 5. FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project (2021)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: FCC changed media ownership rules and was accused of ignoring public data on diversity impacts.
Issue: Did the FCC provide a reasoned explanation in light of public input?
Holding: Yes ā the Court found that FCC's decision was not arbitrary even if it didnāt adopt public suggestions.
Significance: Shows courts will defer to agencies if they show they considered crowd input, even if they reject it.
ā 6. Make the Road New York v. Wolf (2020)
Southern District of New York
Facts: DHS issued new rules restricting immigration benefits with limited public comment and rushed timing.
Issue: Was public participation adequate under APA?
Holding: No ā the rule was vacated due to lack of meaningful opportunity for input.
Significance: Reinforced the requirement that public comment must be genuine and not rushed.
š§µ Themes Across the Cases
| Legal Rule | Explained Through... | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Public input must be real | Overton Park, Nova Scotia | Agencies must listen and respond, not just go through the motions |
| All stakeholders deserve equal access | Home Box Office, Prometheus | Agencies can't favor insiders or skip formal comment |
| Technical data must be available | ARRL v. FCC | You canāt comment on what you canāt see |
| Speed must not override fairness | Make the Road NY | Rushing the process voids legitimacy |
| Agency discretion still matters | Prometheus | Courts won't force agencies to agree with public ā just to consider the input |
š§ Real-World Applications of Crowd-Sourced Policymaking
EPAās āOpen Scienceā Rule: Publicly posted raw data and asked commenters to critique methods
DOT Smart City Challenge: Used crowd proposals to shape transportation policy
HHS Price Transparency Rule: Received over 10,000 comments via online platforms
U.S. Digital Service APIs: Drafted with public GitHub feedback
RELATED Blog
0 comments