At the center of contemporary debates over public law lies administrative agencies’ discretion to impose rules. Yet for every one of these rules, there are also unrules nearby. Often overlooked and sometimes barely visible, unrules are the decisions that regulators make to lift or limit the scope of a regulatory obligation through, for instance, waivers, exemptions, or exceptions. In some cases, unrules enable regulators to reduce burdens on regulated entities or to conserve valuable government resources in ways that make law more efficient. However, too much discretion to create unrules can facilitate undue business influence over the law, weaken regulatory schemes, and even undermine the rule of law. In this Article, we conduct the first systematic empirical investigation of the hidden world of unrules. Using a computational-linguistic approach to identify unrules across the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the United States Code, we show that unrules are an integral and substantial feature of the federal regulatory system. Our analysis shows that, by several conservative measures, there exists one obligation-alleviating word for approximately every five to six obligation-imposing words in federal law. We also show that unrules are surprisingly unrestrained by administrative law. In stark contrast to administrative law’s treatment of obligation-imposing rules, regulators enjoy greater discretion when deploying unrules to alleviate regulatory obligations. As a result, a major form of agency power remains hidden from view and relatively unencumbered by law. Recognizing the central role that unrules play in our regulatory system reveals the need to reorient administrative law and incorporate unrules more explicitly into its assumptions, doctrines, and procedures.
* Cary Coglianese is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Gabriel Scheffler is an Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. Daniel E. Walters is an Assistant Professor of Law, Pennsylvania State University Law School.
We benefitted greatly from feedback received in seminars at the University of Michigan Law School, Penn State Law School, the University of California Berkeley School of Law, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, as well as at workshops sponsored by the Law and Society Association and the AALS Sections on Administrative Law, Environmental Law, and Natural Resources & Energy Law. For especially helpful comments, we thank Sarah Beller, Lavi M. Ben Dor, Maggie Blackhawk, John Cooney, Daniel Deacon, Jill Fisch, Victor Flatt, Michael Froomkin, Jean Galbraith, Andrew Hammond, Paul Heaton, Christina Ho, Allison Hoffman, Ben Johnson, Seema Kakade, Leo Katz, Michael Knoll, Barbara Koremenos, Alicia Lai, Ronald Levin, Neysun Mahboubi, Jud Mathews, Nina Mendelson, Julian Davis Mortenson, Adam Muchmore, Aaron Nielson, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Nicholson Price, Adam Pritchard, Todd Rakoff, Steve Rashin, Richard Revesz, Dorothy Roberts, Steve Ross, Fred Schauer, Peter Schuck, Sidney Shapiro, Peter Strauss, Stephen Sugarman, Thomas Stanton, Nina Varsava, Paul Verkuil, Shoba Wadhia, Wendy Wagner, Megan Wright, Christopher Yoo, and David Zaring. The article would not have been possible without the diligent research assistance of Olivia Gibbs, Harry Gunn, and Zihan Xiong. Steve Rashin provided assistance with data analysis, and Urooba Abid, Marcus Holtzman, Emma Ronzetti, William Walters, and the editorial team at the Stanford Law Review offered excellent help in preparing the manuscript. We offer special thanks to Timothy von Dulm, whose help in securing for us a digital source of regulatory texts was invaluable. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge William S. Hein & Co., Inc. for its willingness to provide data from the Federal Register.