Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Combat Trump’s 2-for-1 Regulation Order

The lawsuit references threats to the DOT’s recent speed governor proposal and current environmental emissions standards.

Last week, opponents of President Trump’s controversial two-for-one regulation order filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction, citing the potential loss of beneficial public safety regulations like the DOT’s recent speed governor proposal, or federal truck emission regs intended to safeguard the environment.

Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a branch of the AFL-CIO filed the suit on Wednesday, Feb 9, arguing that the President had overstepped his constitutional authority, and the order, which requires federal agencies eliminate two regulations for every new one created, puts the public and environment at risk. The suit names Trump, as well as newly appointed Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, in addition to other executive branch staff, as defendants in the suit.

Throughout his campaign, Trump promised voters that he would remove barriers that he believed interfered with job creation and economic prosperity. As a fulfillment of that promise, Trump signed the executive order Jan. 30, requiring two active regulations be eliminated if a new one was to be introduced.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated during his Feb 9 press briefing that the order sought to ensure that regulations “are meeting their intent and not stifling job creation at the extent of whatever they were intended to do.” Spicer said, “The bottom line … is that over-regulation has stemmed economic growth and job creation.”

Opponents believe that the Trump administration is exercising support of industry at the expense of safety and the environment. If the order isn’t challenged, it would likely prevent further action on the DOT’s speed governor proposal, which would limit drivers to speeds of 60, 65, or 68 mph, as well as jeopardize multiple emissions regs intended to limit pollution produced by trucks and protect air quality. The plaintiffs in the suit stated, “To repeal two regulations for the purpose of adopting one would be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the Clean Air Act.”