On April 9, 2025, the White House published a new Memorandum entitled “Directing The Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” aimed at identifying and reviewing unlawful or potentially unlawful regulations for potential repeal. The Memorandum avers that illegal, unnecessary, and onerous regulations impede the Administration’s objectives of promoting economic growth and American innovation, and impose massive costs on American consumers and businesses.

Referencing the February 19, 2025, Executive Order (EO) 14219 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative), the White House directed federal department and agency heads to identify certain categories of potentially improper rules and begin plans for repeal. Evaluations of the identified rules will be based upon a comparison to the rulings under the following recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions:

  1. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
  2. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
  3. SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
  4. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
  5. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
  6. Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
  7. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
  8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
  9. Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
  10. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020).

A White House fact sheet discussing these rulings and the applicability of each of these cases can be accessed here.  The goal of the April 9th Memorandum is to “revoke these unlawful regulations expeditiously, using the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) ‘good cause’ exception where appropriate.”

Departments and agencies were directed to seek public input to identify such regulations and develop repeal plans. Then, within 30 days after close of the public review period, federal agencies and departments must submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs summaries of each regulation identified and explain the basis for any decision not to repeal an identified regulation.

To begin to implement this process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will soon begin soliciting information on deregulation suggestions regarding federal regulations.  Any interested person can submit detailed reasons for rescission of any regulation(s) currently in effect. OMB outlined the process in a draft notice of Request for Information (RFI) that is expected to be published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2025 and be available at the following link – https://federalregister.gov/d/2025-06316. OMB will be accepting public comments following the RFI’s publication in the Federal Register through the following link – https://www.regulations.gov/. Pursuant to the White House Memorandum and EO discussed above, the RFI specifically seeks requests or proposals for regulations that should be rescinded or replaced because unnecessary, arguably illegal, unduly burdensome, or unsound. A specific focus of the review will be placed on regulations demonstrated to be 1) inconsistent with statutory or Constitutional text, 2) have costs that exceed benefits (or where no such analysis was undertaken), or 3) are outdated or burdensome to American businesses.

Photo of Melissa Thorme Melissa Thorme

Melissa Thorme counsels industrial and municipal clients in addressing their environmental compliance challenges and negotiating or litigating their regulatory enforcement actions. With nearly 35 years’ experience, Melissa advises business entities, including food processors, lumber companies, agricultural companies, contractors, marinas and boat yards, auto…

Melissa Thorme counsels industrial and municipal clients in addressing their environmental compliance challenges and negotiating or litigating their regulatory enforcement actions. With nearly 35 years’ experience, Melissa advises business entities, including food processors, lumber companies, agricultural companies, contractors, marinas and boat yards, auto dismantlers, small manufacturing companies, and oil field waste-produced water facilities, in addition to sanitation districts, counties, and cities throughout California on matters related to NPDES, wastewater, and recycled water discharge permitting and waivers, TMDLs, and enforcement actions brought by regulatory agencies or in Clean Water Act/Proposition 65 citizen suits.

Continue reading Melissa Thorme’s bio.

Photo of Nicole Granquist Nicole Granquist

Nicole Granquist is among a select group of attorneys in California who specializes exclusively in water quality regulatory compliance, enforcement defense, and litigation. Described by clients as a “powerhouse” who has a “tremendous grasp of the complex scientific, legal, and political issues” involved…

Nicole Granquist is among a select group of attorneys in California who specializes exclusively in water quality regulatory compliance, enforcement defense, and litigation. Described by clients as a “powerhouse” who has a “tremendous grasp of the complex scientific, legal, and political issues” involved in California water quality regulation and litigation, Nicole’s tenacity, creativity, and pragmatic approach have consistently delivered exceptional results for her statewide municipal and industrial clients, earning her respect and credibility with both regulators and opposing counsel.

Nicole routinely negotiates NPDES Permits, waste discharge requirements (WDRs), and water reclamation requirements with the state board and regional water boards for municipal wastewater, industrial process water, and all types of stormwater discharges, as well as reclamation projects. Her involvement in these matters consistently results in more favorable and reasonable permit provisions. She also is deeply involved in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and all aspects of Basin Planning and has positively contributed to and influenced important statewide policies. A recent example involves Nicole’s testimony before the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which beneficially influenced the terms of the SWRCB’s compliance schedule policy.