Legal Definitions - legislative-equivalency doctrine

The legislative-equivalency doctrine is a legal principle that dictates how laws and regulations can be changed or removed. It essentially states that a law should only be amended or repealed using the same formal procedures, or an equivalent process, that were originally used to create it.

In simpler terms, if a law was established through a specific, formal legislative process (like a vote by a full legislative body and a signature from an executive), it generally cannot be undone or significantly altered by a less formal action, such as a simple administrative directive or an internal memo. The power and process used to create a law must be matched by an equivalent power and process to modify or abolish it, ensuring stability and proper procedure in lawmaking.

Here are some examples to illustrate this doctrine:

• Federal Statute: Imagine the U.S. Congress passes a comprehensive federal law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), after extensive debate, votes in both the House and Senate, and it is then signed into law by the President. Under the legislative-equivalency doctrine, a future President cannot simply issue an executive order to completely repeal the ADA. To undo or significantly alter such a statute, it would typically require another act of Congress, passed through the same rigorous legislative process, and signed by the President. An executive order might clarify how the law is implemented, but it cannot abolish the law itself because an executive order is not legislatively equivalent to a full statute.

• State Regulation: Consider a state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that, after public notice, comment periods, and formal review, adopts a detailed regulation setting specific limits on industrial emissions. This regulation is formally published and has the force of law. If a new director takes over the DEP, they cannot simply send out an internal memo stating that the emission limits are no longer in effect. To repeal or substantially change that regulation, the DEP would generally need to follow the same formal rulemaking procedures—including public notice, comment, and formal adoption—that were used to create it. This ensures that the process for changing the rule is equivalent to the process for establishing it.

• Local Ordinance: A city council passes a zoning ordinance that designates a specific neighborhood as residential-only, after holding public hearings, multiple readings, and formal votes. A single city council member or even the mayor cannot unilaterally declare that the zoning ordinance is no longer valid for a particular property. To change or repeal that ordinance, the city council would typically need to go through a new legislative process, including public notice, hearings, and a formal vote, mirroring the procedure used to enact the original ordinance. This prevents less formal actions from overriding formally established local laws.