REGULATOR-IN-CHIEF:

Ever since President Trump took office, his appointees have directed federal agencies to draft regulations meant to delay or reverse policies of the Obama administration.

Nearly all the proposals have been tripped up by the same arcane 1946 law governing administrative policies. Just last week, two signature administration actions -- to add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 census, and to allow employers to avoid covering birth control for their workers if they object to it -- have been stymied by rulings under the law.

That law, the Administrative Procedure Act, was written to make sure that the executive branch followed some basic steps when it wanted to change policies. Over time, courts have given it additional teeth by requiring regulators to follow certain processes and conduct certain analyses before making changes. The Trump administration appears to have repeatedly failed to hew to those standards.

"I think there was a lot of corner cutting by the administration," said Josh Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, who has been critical of shortcuts in the regulatory process by both the Trump and Obama administrations.

An analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law shows that more than 90 percent of court challenges to major Trump deregulatory actions have been successful so far. By the institute's count, 30 big rules have been challenged, and the courts have found for the litigants 28 times.

Tweet   @brothersjudd