FOLLICULAR FEDERALISM

Part III: Administrative Hair, Interstate Follicular Commerce, and Hair v. United States Parody/Satire by Alan Chwick

Jul 07, 2026

XXI. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND THE CHEVRON HAIR DOCTRINE

No analysis of modern political hair would be complete without addressing the administrative state. Administrative agencies occupy a unique position in the constitutional ecosystem: they neither fully legislate nor fully adjudicate, yet they produce a disproportionate share of regulatory hair. Scholars refer to this phenomenon as Bureaucratic Keratin Proliferation (BKP). Under BKP, each statutory mandate generates:

1. Rules

2. Sub-rules

3. Guidance documents

4. Interpretive memoranda

5. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs about FAQs)

6. Internal training materials explaining the FAQs

Each layer produces additional follicular output.

A. Chevron Deference and Follicular Expansion

Historically, courts have deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes under the doctrine articulated in: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Within Follicular Federalism, Chevron deference is reinterpreted as the Chevron Hair Doctrine. Under this doctrine: When statutory language is ambiguous, agencies are permitted to grow interpretive hair so long as it is “reasonable.” Critics argue this allows agencies to expand regulatory hair beyond constitutional limits, while supporters argue it prevents interpretive baldness.

The Supreme Court has declined to clarify whether interpretive baldness is constitutionally protected.

B. Post-Chevron Hair Conditions

Following Chevron, agencies developed increasingly sophisticated follicular structures:

· Sub-agencies interpreting agencies

· Guidance interpreting sub-agencies

· Emergency rules interpreting guidance

· “Clarifications” clarifying previous clarifications

By the early 21st century, regulatory hair had become self-referential. One agency memo famously cited another memo which cited itself.

The resulting circularity is considered by scholars to be either “deeply troubling” or “a normal Tuesday.”

XXII. THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE AND INTERSTATE HAIR TRANSPORT

The Dormant Commerce Clause presents one of the most complex issues in Follicular Federalism. If political hair crosses state lines, does it constitute interstate commerce?

Early scholars answered cautiously in the affirmative, but modern scholars are less cautious.

Political hair clearly flows across borders through: Cable television, Social media, National fundraising campaigns, Presidential elections, and Argumentative relatives visiting Thanksgiving.

A. Hair as Commerce

Under contemporary doctrine, interstate commerce includes: Goods, Services, Information, Emotional distress, and Internet arguments lasting longer than 48 hours. Political hair fits comfortably within all five categories.

Thus, interstate follicular transport is likely constitutional commerce.

B. State Attempts at Hair Regulation

Several states have attempted to regulate political hair indirectly. Examples include: Social media moderation statutes, Election speech timing restrictions, “Civility requirements” for public meetings, and Mandatory cooling-off periods for public comments. These laws frequently face constitutional challenge, with opponents arguing they burden speech, and supporters arguing they prevent follicular wildfires.

Courts remain divided, primarily because judges themselves are not immune to political hair growth.

XXIII. HAIR v. UNITED STATES (2024): A LANDMARK FOLLICULAR CASE

The Supreme Court’s most important modern decision in follicular jurisprudence is: Hair v. United States. Although fictional in origin, the case has become widely cited in academic literature.

A. Facts

Congress enacted the National Political Hair Transparency Act (NPHTA), requiring federal agencies to: Disclose sources of political hair growth, Report annual RFU (Rhetorical Follicular Unit) production, and Limit excessive rhetorical beard expansion during press briefings.

A coalition of federal agencies challenged the law, arguing it violated separation of powers and the First Amendment.

B. Majority Opinion (Justice Bartholomew Kerning, joined by 6 Justices)

The Court upheld the statute in part and invalidated it in part. The majority held: “Political hair, while constitutionally inevitable, may be subject to disclosure requirements where such requirements do not materially inhibit expressive growth.”

The Court emphasized that transparency does not equal suppression. It analogized political hair reporting to financial disclosure laws for elected officials.

The opinion concluded: “A democracy incapable of measuring its own hair is a democracy incapable of understanding its own reflection.”

C. Concurrence (Justice Elena Softcomb)

Justice Softcomb agreed with the outcome but warned: “This Court should not become the national barber.”

She expressed concern that excessive judicial involvement in follicular regulation could itself generate unintended hair growth.

D. Dissent (Justice Thaddeus Frizzwell)

Justice Frizzwell dissented vigorously, arguing: “The Constitution contains no Hair Clause, express or implied.” He warned that regulating political hair would lead to: Federal beard quotas, National sideburn standards, and Mandatory civility haircuts.

He concluded: “Today it is political hair. Tomorrow it is thought itself.”

XXIV. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND THE FOLLICULAR STATE

Following Hair v. United States, administrative agencies expanded their oversight. The Federal Follicular Commission (FFC) was proposed to: Monitor RFU levels, Publish national hair growth statistics, and Issue advisory guidance on rhetorical excess.

The proposal was never enacted. Critics argued it would become a “hair growth factory regulating hair growth factories,” and supporters countered that this was already the system.

XXV. INTERSTATE HAIR TRANSPORT AND THE STREAM OF COMMERCE

Under modern doctrine, political hair moves through a national “stream of commerce.” This includes: Television broadcasts, Online platforms, National newspapers, Influencer networks, and Viral arguments originating in obscure comment sections.

Once released, political hair cannot be contained. Attempts at containment often produce additional hair. This is known as the Hydraulic Principle of Political Follicles:

Pressure applied to political disagreement increases downstream rhetorical output.

XXVI. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERENCE PROBLEM

A central unresolved issue in Follicular Federalism is whether courts should defer to agencies interpreting follicular statutes. Three competing theories exist:

1. Full Deference Theory: Agencies understand hair best.

2. No Deference Theory: Agencies are the primary source of hair and therefore biased.

3. Selective Deference Theory: Courts should defer only when judges agree with the agency. This third theory is, coincidentally, the most frequently applied.

XXVII. FEDERALISM AND HAIR CONFLICTS

States continue to assert authority over local hair regulation, while Federal government asserts supremacy over national hair flows. This tension manifests in recurring disputes over: Election speech, Social media regulation, Public demonstrations, and Cable news distribution.

Despite extensive litigation, no jurisdiction has succeeded in eliminating political hair. At best, courts can redirect it, and at worst, they can document its expansion.

XXVIII. CONCLUSION OF PART III

Administrative law has transformed political hair into a regulated, litigated, and partially measured constitutional phenomenon. Chevron deference enables interpretive hair growth, and the Dormant Commerce Clause facilitates interstate hair circulation.

Hair v. United States confirms judicial recognition of political hair as a constitutional reality, even if begrudgingly so. Yet despite these doctrinal developments, one principle remains constant: Political hair cannot be eliminated.

It can only be redirected, redistributed, and occasionally trimmed.

Part IV will conclude this Article with:

· The Strict Scrutiny Test for Political Hair Growth

· Federal Preemption Doctrine

· The Model Uniform Political Hair Code (UPHC)

· A full statistical appendix of national RFU growth (1789–present)

· Expanded Bluebook citations

· Final synthesis of Follicular Federalism as a constitutional theory of democratic participation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alan J. Chwick, A.S., B.S., FL/NY/SC Paralegal, is known for his involvement in legal articles usually related to firearm regulations and for his contributions to discussions on firearm rights. Managing Coach (Ret.) of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club (FreeportJuniorClub.org). Escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL & Gunsmith (Everything22andMore.com).

AJChwick@iNCNF.org | TWITTER & TRUTHSOCIAL: @iNCNF

2. So Called ‘Assault Weapons’ ~ When Words Are Used Instead of Guns To Disarm Us

3. Founders Knew: They Foresaw Today’s Unaccountable Government!

4. “Congress Shall Make No Law” vs. “Shall Not Be Infringed”

5. U.S. Second Amendment: Means ALL Weapons & ZERO Infringements

6. Are Gun Permit-to-Purchase Laws Unconstitutional?

7. When Paperwork Became the Policy: Firearms Regulation During the Biden Era

8. Your Moral Right To Keep & Bear Firearms In The United States

9. The Necessity of Protecting Private Arms Possession in the United States: A Defense of Rights and Security

10. The Founders’ Experiment: Arms in America

11. Lethal Weapon vs. Less-Lethal Weapon, Are You Overconfident?

12. Norming Guns Away: Social Norm Formation, International Influence, and the Second Amendment After Bruen