Recent Projects

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently proposed a rule that would deny housing assistance to some immigrant households. We submitted comments focusing on serious flaws in HUD’s analysis of the rule’s impacts.

In April, district courts in Washington State, Oregon, and California blocked a Trump administration rule that makes harmful changes to the federal funding of women’s health services. Those decisions were recently appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We filed amicus briefs arguing that the preliminary injunctions should be affirmed.

In February, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule that would strengthen regulations for sunscreen products. We submitted comments explaining how FDA can improve its analysis of the rule’s impacts.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently finalized a rule that expands protections for healthcare workers who deny care based on moral or religious beliefs. We submitted an amicus brief in support of challenges to the rule filed by states, municipalities, medical organizations, and civil-rights advocates. The brief details how HHS’s analysis of the rule’s economic impacts ignores significant costs while touting entirely speculative benefits.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed to remove from the 2016 Head Start Program Performance Standards a requirement that programs offer full-time, full-year service for every enrolled preschooler. We submitted comments recommending that HHS provide a more transparent justification for the change.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is proposing to repeal a rule that protects borrowers from exploitative payday lending practices. We submitted comments focusing on CFPB’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for reversing key legal and economic conclusions of the rule.

The Institute for Policy Integrity helped contribute to a significant legal victory, as district courts in Washington State, Oregon, and California blocked a Trump administration rule that makes harmful changes to federally-funded women’s health services. In February, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced onerous restrictions to its Title X program, likely forcing the shutdown of some family planning clinics and closing off access to others for low-income women. We submitted comments on the rule and amicus briefs supporting requests for preliminary injunction in four court cases. The Eastern District of Washington refers to our brief in the reasoning for its decision to grant an injunction. The Northern District of California’s ruling cites our brief and devotes a lengthy discussion to the arguments we advanced.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule that makes detrimental revisions to the federal Title X program, which funds free or low-cost reproductive health services for millions of women each year. HHS would impose onerous restrictions that will likely force the shutdown of key health clinics that rely on federal funding. We submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in support of the plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argue that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because HHS failed to accurately assess the rule’s health costs, compliance costs, and alleged benefits. Our brief provides the court with context on the legal and economic standards for regulatory impact analysis to detail how HHS’s assessment of the rule thoroughly flunks those standards.

We also filed briefs in Title X cases in the District of Oregon, Eastern District of Washington, and District of Maine.

Our new tracking resource tallies the benefits to public health and the environment that are at risk due to regulatory repeals, delays, and revisions. Since 2017, numerous environmental rules have been the subject of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda. The original rules highlighted in our document were economically justified, meaning each was supported by a detailed account of its monetized benefits to the American public, which outweighed projected costs. Now, as the administration works to undo these rules, a wide range of crucial benefits could be lost. Our resource provides information on the kinds of benefits at risk, monetized gross and net benefit estimates, and other unquantified health and environmental effects of several federal rules.