Limits of OMB’s OIRA oversight in rulemaking
🔹 I. What is OIRA?
OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is a subdivision of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the Executive Office of the President. It plays a major role in reviewing federal regulations before they are finalized, especially those deemed “significant” or “economically impactful.”
🔹 II. OIRA’s Role in Rulemaking
Under Executive Order 12866 (1993) and its successors, OIRA:
Reviews “significant regulatory actions” by federal agencies.
Evaluates cost-benefit analyses.
Coordinates inter-agency review.
Ensures rules are consistent with presidential priorities.
However, OIRA's power is procedural, not substantive—it does not directly create or enforce regulations. This leads to legal limits on its oversight power.
🔹 III. Legal and Constitutional Limits on OIRA Oversight
Statutory Delegation:
Regulatory authority rests with federal agencies, not OIRA. Congress delegates rulemaking power to agencies via statutes—not to the OMB or OIRA.
Non-Interference with Independent Agencies:
Many independent agencies (like the SEC or FCC) are not subject to OIRA review.
Non-Reviewability:
Courts are often hesitant to review OIRA procedures because they are executive-internal and based on executive orders—not statute.
Violation of Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
If OIRA delays or interferes with rulemaking beyond what the APA allows, it can be challenged.
📚 IV. Case Law: Limits on OIRA’s Oversight in Rulemaking
1. Public Citizen v. Office of Management and Budget, 598 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Facts:
Public Citizen sued the OMB for refusing to review certain rules and claimed that its oversight interfered with statutorily required rulemaking.
Issue:
Can OIRA’s review be challenged as unlawfully interfering with agency rulemaking?
Ruling:
The D.C. Circuit held that OIRA’s actions under Executive Orders are generally not reviewable under the APA, since they are not legally binding on agencies and don’t carry statutory force.
Significance:
Reinforces that OIRA oversight is policy-based, not legally enforceable.
Limits judicial scrutiny over presidential regulatory review processes.
2. Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Facts:
Challenged the EPA’s final rule on air pollution, arguing it was improperly influenced by White House/OMB intervention.
Issue:
Can the President or OMB alter an agency’s scientific findings or rules?
Ruling:
Court held that inter-agency communication is permissible, but the agency must maintain record transparency and make final decisions independently.
Significance:
OMB may provide input, but cannot dictate final rules.
Agency’s rule must reflect statutory standards, not White House preferences.
3. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Facts:
EPA was accused of delaying a hazardous waste rule under pressure from OMB/OIRA.
Issue:
Does executive review excuse agencies from meeting statutory deadlines?
Ruling:
No. The court held that OMB review cannot justify delay if the underlying statute sets a firm deadline.
Significance:
Statutory deadlines override OIRA review schedules.
OIRA cannot cause unlawful delay of mandatory rules.
4. Center for Auto Safety v. Office of Management and Budget, 931 F. Supp. 1291 (D.D.C. 1996)
Facts:
Advocacy groups sought OMB/OIRA documents related to delayed auto safety rules under FOIA.
Issue:
Can OIRA communications about rulemaking be kept confidential?
Ruling:
Court applied limited privilege to OIRA materials but emphasized that OMB’s internal communications can be discoverable, especially when transparency is at stake.
Significance:
Reinforces that OIRA’s involvement must be part of the rulemaking record when influencing outcomes.
Supports public’s right to monitor regulatory interference.
5. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)
Facts:
While not directly about OIRA, this case addressed limits on executive agencies’ ability to expand their regulatory scope, even with executive encouragement.
Issue:
Could FDA regulate tobacco based on internal reinterpretation and White House initiative?
Ruling:
The Court held FDA lacked authority because Congress had not delegated such power, despite White House pressure.
Significance:
Executive encouragement (including from OIRA) cannot override Congress’s statutory delegation.
Supports the idea that OIRA cannot push agencies to act beyond their mandate.
6. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts:
EPA declined to regulate greenhouse gases, allegedly influenced by White House policy via OIRA.
Issue:
Was EPA’s refusal consistent with the Clean Air Act?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found EPA’s refusal arbitrary and capricious, requiring the agency to regulate GHGs if they endanger public health.
Significance:
Shows that policy pressure (even from OIRA or the President) cannot justify ignoring statutory duties.
Courts will enforce statutory mandates over executive discretion.
7. California v. Bernhardt, 472 F. Supp. 3d 573 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Facts:
Interior Department delayed an environmental regulation allegedly due to extended OIRA review.
Issue:
Did OIRA’s prolonged review and interference violate the APA?
Ruling:
The court found that extended OIRA delays without legal justification could amount to arbitrary action, especially where statutes impose specific rulemaking timelines.
Significance:
Suggests OIRA cannot be used to “sit on” rules indefinitely.
Agencies remain accountable to statutory deadlines regardless of internal executive review.
🔹 V. Summary: Legal Limits on OIRA Oversight
| Legal Limit | Explanation | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| No statutory authority | OIRA operates under executive orders, not legislation. | Public Citizen v. OMB |
| Cannot override agency discretion | OIRA may coordinate, but final decisions rest with agencies. | Sierra Club v. Costle |
| Must not delay statutory deadlines | Agencies must meet congressionally mandated rulemaking timelines. | NRDC v. EPA, California v. Bernhardt |
| No expansion of agency authority | Agencies cannot expand jurisdiction at OIRA’s or President’s suggestion. | FDA v. Brown & Williamson |
| Limited secrecy or immunity | OIRA communications may be reviewed in legal challenges or FOIA requests. | Center for Auto Safety v. OMB |
| Not above APA constraints | Courts may invalidate delays or interference that violate APA norms. | Massachusetts v. EPA, California v. Bernhardt |
🔹 VI. Conclusion
The OMB’s OIRA plays an important gatekeeping and coordination role in federal rulemaking, but its power is:
Procedural, not substantive
Bound by statutes
Subject to judicial review if it causes unlawful delay or interference
Ultimately, Congress delegates regulatory power to agencies, and courts closely guard that delegation. OIRA can coordinate, advise, and delay to an extent—but it cannot rewrite laws or block lawful regulation indefinitely.
RELATED Blog
0 comments