Georgia is one of many states that has recently begun to look critically at its growing regulatory code.
Lawmakers, business leaders and policy advocates have pointed out how regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch have placed an unnecessary burden on the state’s workers and industries. The lack of legislative oversight in what functions as de facto lawmaking (this is especially true at the federal level) is another concern. This problem is compounded by the fact that Georgia’s code has grown unchecked for decades, resulting in a lack of transparency as well as redundant, outdated and even contradictory rules.
But as the state’s code grows, so too does the list of other states that have taken steps to reduce their own. Those efforts demonstrate a widespread shift away from passive acceptance of regulatory growth. Despite lawmakers’ desire to maintain Georgia’s status as “the best state for business,” the push for meaningful regulatory reform has not been free of obstacles.
At the beginning of 2025, the first year of Georgia’s current two-year legislative session, the lieutenant governor’s office sent a clear signal that the state was getting serious about regulatory reform with the announcement of the Red Tape Rollback Act. This resulted in Senate Bill 28, introduced by Sen. Greg Dolezal. It was an omnibus package that bundled together several ideas seen in other states that have proved more effective and enduring.
It would have required small-business impact analyses for bills, added stronger economic impact analysis requirements for agency rules, expanded the General Assembly’s ability to object to or override proposed rules and required periodic review and sunset of administrative rules so agencies would have to justify keeping them on the books. Despite passing the Senate last year, SB 28 was not brought up for a vote in the House and has not advanced this year.
Despite this, regulatory reform is still very much alive at the Capitol. Instead of one sweeping package, lawmakers have moved a series of smaller, targeted fixes.
One of these is House Bill 903, which was introduced by Rep. Alan Powell (R-Hartwell) and passed the House in February. This bill would apply the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to all agencies across the executive branch. This means that more state agencies would have to work through a legislative framework of notice, review and possible override by following the APA’s requirements before adopting rules or deciding contested cases.
For rulemaking, Georgia’s APA generally requires agencies to give at least 30 days’ notice of a proposed rule, publish the proposed text and synopsis and provide a chance for public participation before adoption. The APA also governs contested cases and judicial review, including notice and hearing requirements in agency adjudications.
This idea is one of several regulatory reform efforts that simply returns powers and responsibilities to their intended branches of government. Rep. Powell pointed this out in his floor speech, saying that, “for too long, this House has been derelict in its duties due to the bureaucracy of the state that passes rules and regulations that we don’t have oversight to.”
Rep. Powell noted that his own constituents had asked him many times over his long tenure in the House about a given law, only to find that “law” was a regulation put forth by the bureaucracy that had the effect of law.
House Bill 1178 also strengthens legislative oversight by giving the House Budget and Fiscal Affairs Oversight Committee the authority to review budget matters, require reporting and provide for audits of state spending and performance. Its sponsor is Rep. Mitchell Horner (R-Ringgold).
To complete the trifecta, lawmakers have also sought curbing administrative overreach by reforming how the judiciary handles the regulatory process through House Bill 1247, sponsored by Rep. Matt Reeves (R-Duluth). This bill creates the “Georgia Bureaucratic Deference Act.”
Currently, when an agency and a regulated party disagree over what a law requires, courts primarily give benefit of the doubt to the agency’s interpretation. This process is commonly referred to as “judicial deference.” It can function as a shortcut through our system of separated powers because it involves the executive branch performing duties meant for other branches. HB 1247 would require Georgia courts to decide questions of law without defaulting to an agency’s preferred interpretation.
Other proposals reflected the same broader skepticism of unchecked administrative policymaking, but didn’t make it through Crossover Day. House Bill 1078, for example, would have required agencies to periodically review and sunset existing rules, one of the more common regulatory reform tools found in other states.
While this session has not seen the sweeping overhaul of the administrative state that many advocates might have wanted, there’s still a chance to make progress on regulatory reform, as consequential proposals are still alive.