Holding Our Government Accountable Through Regulatory Comments

Federal agencies make many policies through administrative rulemaking processes, in which the agency develops a proposed rule (also known as a regulation) and then solicits comments from the public on the proposal.

Agencies have no inherent power to regulate; these regulations interpret, implement or enforce laws enacted by Congress. And while courts historically have given agencies broad discretion to enact regulations, regulations must be well-reasoned and supported by the underlying law.

Following the comment period, federal law requires agencies to review every comment submitted in response to a proposed rule and then decide whether to withdraw the proposal or issue a final rule. Any final rule must address all the comments the agency received, as well as the issues they raised.  

Because agencies must consider the comments they received on proposed rules, these comments are an important way to hold government accountable and influence its actions, flagging any legal and administrative deficiencies before a proposed rule is adopted. Campaign Legal Center regularly submits comments in opposition to proposals that would threaten the rule of law and undermine democratic processes if they were enacted.

Opposing Illegal and Harmful Proposed Rules

In May 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a rule that would unlawfully transform how government funding is awarded in the United States by replacing apolitical processes for awarding grants with a process designed solely to “advance the President’s policy priorities.” Campaign Legal Center submitted two comments highlighting the illegality and harmfulness of the proposal.  

Opposing Proposed Voter Registration Restrictions

On July 13, 2026, on behalf of itself, the Andrew Goodman Foundation, Bard College, Nonprofit VOTE, the Students Learn Students Vote Coalition and Wesleyan University, Campaign Legal Center submitted a comment strongly opposing restrictions in OMB’s proposed rule that threatens funding for higher education institutions and nonprofit organizations that conduct voter registration-related activities.

As Campaign Legal Center’s comment explains, these voter registration restrictions are illegal in several distinct ways, violating: (1) the fundamental separation of powers; (2) the First Amendment; (3) multiple provisions of the National Voter Registration Act; (4) federal law requiring eligible institutions of higher education to make a good faith effort to facilitate voter registration; (5) numerous state laws; and (6) the Administrative Procedure Act. The proposed rule will likewise create significant confusion and irreparable harm for nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education engaged in voter registration and seeking to comply with related federal rules.

Opposing Proposed Scientific and Research Setbacks

On July 13, 2026, on behalf of itself, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Walker-Whitman and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Campaign Legal Center submitted a comment warning that allowing political appointees to administer federal awards based on partisan alignment and other unscientific criteria would hamper scientific research on topics deemed unsavory by the Trump administration, thus harming government’s ability to craft evidence-based policy responsive to critical public health and environmental threats. The comment also demonstrates that the proposed rule would violate the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment.  

Opposing DOJ’s Proposed Attorney Ethics Rule

In March 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a regulation that would overhaul the attorney discipline process by giving the agency the right to review any allegations of current or former DOJ attorney misconduct in the first instance and pause state bar investigations indefinitely.  

On April 6, 2026, on behalf of itself, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, Q Law NJ, Inc., QLaw Foundation of Washington, the Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, the Tom Homann LGBTQ+ Law Association and the Virginia LGBTQ+ Bar Association, Campaign Legal Center filed a comment strongly opposing DOJ's proposed overhaul of this state-governed process.

The comment argues that the proposed rule 1) exceeds DOJ's statutory authority; 2) is not supported by adequate reasoning or data; 3) would make enforcement of state ethics rules less effective; and 4) infringes on states' traditional authority to regulate attorneys' conduct.