Good Cause for Goodness’ Sake: A New Approach to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

Notice and comment is a public participation process, first articulated in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), that was heralded at the time as a critical innovation to engage the general population in the administrative agency rulemaking process. It has been crippled in the past fifty years, first by a series of cases—primarily at the circuit court level—which imposed new procedural requirements on agencies outside the text of the APA itself, and then by technological advancements that have enabled sophisticated parties to game the system while boxing others out. Rather than creating a democratic open-door process, notice and comment has become inequitable, inaccessible, and ineffective. Procedural requirements imposed not by statute but by judges have created both a resource management problem and a litigation trap for administrative agencies, at times preventing them from achieving the actual governance that rules and regulations are meant to advance. This Note offers agencies a solution already enshrined in the APA that would not require the exceedingly impracticable legislative action many proposed solutions rely on. The existing statutory tool—the good cause exception to notice and comment in section 553 of the APA—should be paired with a series of public engagement tools that are already available to agencies. Unlike notice and comment, these engagement methods are minimally resource-intensive and adapted to existing twenty-first century technologies. This approach preserves meaningful public participation in the rulemaking process while addressing many of the problems apparent in notice and comment without introducing new legislation, explicitly overruling any Supreme Court jurisprudence, or imposing new resource challenges on agencies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Michigan Law Review
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.124.1.good
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Good Cause for Goodness’ Sake: A New Approach to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

Hazel Rosenblum-Sellers
Michigan Law Review
Artificial Intelligence in Law
article

Good Cause for Goodness’ Sake: A New Approach to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

Hazel Rosenblum-Sellers
article en

Abstract

Notice and comment is a public participation process, first articulated in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), that was heralded at the time as a critical innovation to engage the general population in the administrative agency rulemaking process. It has been crippled in the past fifty years, first by a series of cases—primarily at the circuit court level—which imposed new procedural requirements on agencies outside the text of the APA itself, and then by technological advancements that have enabled sophisticated parties to game the system while boxing others out. Rather than creating a democratic open-door process, notice and comment has become inequitable, inaccessible, and ineffective. Procedural requirements imposed not by statute but by judges have created both a resource management problem and a litigation trap for administrative agencies, at times preventing them from achieving the actual governance that rules and regulations are meant to advance. This Note offers agencies a solution already enshrined in the APA that would not require the exceedingly impracticable legislative action many proposed solutions rely on. The existing statutory tool—the good cause exception to notice and comment in section 553 of the APA—should be paired with a series of public engagement tools that are already available to agencies. Unlike notice and comment, these engagement methods are minimally resource-intensive and adapted to existing twenty-first century technologies. This approach preserves meaningful public participation in the rulemaking process while addressing many of the problems apparent in notice and comment without introducing new legislation, explicitly overruling any Supreme Court jurisprudence, or imposing new resource challenges on agencies.

Michigan Law Review(124.1)
University of Michigan (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Artificial Intelligence in Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Good Cause for Goodness’ Sake: A New Approach to Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking — Hazel Rosenblum-Sellers · Michigan Law Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS