2 U.S.C. § 1501

Purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

The purposes of this chapter are—(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal governments;(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities;(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed legislation establishing or revising Federal programs containing Federal mandates affecting State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector by—(A) providing for the development of information about the nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on proposed legislation;(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular instance;(5) to require that Congress consider whether to provide funding to assist State, local, and tribal governments in complying with Federal mandates, to require analyses of the impact of private sector mandates, and through the dissemination of that information provide informed and deliberate decisions by Congress and Federal agencies and retain competitive balance between the public and private sectors;(6) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates;(7) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of proposed regulations affecting State, local, and tribal governments, by—(A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to enable the elected and other officials of State, local, and tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are developing regulations; and(B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations containing Federal mandates upon State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector before adopting such regulations, and ensuring that small governments are given special consideration in that process; and(8) to begin consideration of the effect of previously imposed Federal mandates, including the impact on State, local, and tribal governments of Federal court interpretations of Federal statutes and regulations that impose Federal intergovernmental mandates.(Pub. L. 104–4, § 2, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 104–4, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48, known as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 104–4, § 1, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and sections 658 to 658g of this title, amending sections 602, 632, and 653 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1511 and 1531 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995’.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. S. Everglades Restoration All., 304 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. S. Everglades Restoration All., 304 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “dgment, contending, among other things, that the Tribe lacked standing to bring the lawsuit; that SERA was not governed by FACA because it did not meet that Act’s definition of “advisory committee” and did not fall within the Act’s purposes; and that even if SERA would otherwise…”

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). · cites it 2× “" 2 U. S. C. § 1501 (2) (1994 ed., Supp. II).”

AM. Forest Resource Council v. Hall, 533 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.”

In Re United Mine Workers of Am. Int'l Union, 190 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “In addition, MSHA notes that it is now subject to statutory rulemaking requirements that were not considered in 1989, see 2 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq. (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995); 5 U.”

Love Terminal Partners v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 355 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “1469, 1469 (1996); see also 2 U.S.C. § 1501 (2) (providing that one of the purposes of the UMRA was "to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal funding”), 1501(5)…”

Valentine Props. Assocs., LP v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 785 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1501 . Title II of UMRA requires an agency promulgating a rule that constitutes a “federal mandate” to prepare a written statement evaluating the action.”

Allied Local & Reg'l Mfrs. Caucus v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “2 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq. . In announcing the architectural coatings rule, EPA stated that in the future “an additional study for this category may be warranted to determine the feasibility of additional reductions in VOC limits.”

State of Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 133 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 1998). “Nevada also posits that in denying the State’s FY 1996 grant request, the DOE violated the terms of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. § 1501 . Because the DOE’s decision clearly falls outside the scope of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Nevada’s claim must…”

Linn Cnty. v. Brown, 443 P.3d 700 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “48 (1995), codified as 2 USC §§ 1501 -1571. Among other things, it declared its purposes included "to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner…”

Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The State Petitioners in the particulate matter case and Congressman Bli-ley in the ozone case both contend that the EPA is required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) when…”

Castillo v. NewRez LLC (W.D. Tex. 2022). “0001, et seq. See ECF No. 30 at 2–3. Even liberally construed, the Court cannot locate references to any of these statutes in the Original Petition nor can the Court discern the factual basis for Plaintiff’s assertion that they have been violated.”

Linn Cnty. v. Brown, 461 P.3d 966 (Or. 2020). “” 2 USC § 1501 (2). The statute defined “Federal mandate” as “any provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty” on one of the iden- tified governments, including as a condition of federal assis- tance or arising from…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.