Written by William C. Duncan
March 26, 2026
In 2023, when the State of Utah stopped using humorous messages on highways to encourage driver safety, a local newspaper wondered if disapproval from the Federal Highway Administration might have been a factor in the decision. It turns out that the state just felt a change would be helpful and found an alternative outlet for humor in the state department of transportation’s X account. News reports point to similar experiences in Arizona and New Jersey.
Where did these states get the idea that the federal government was trying to stop their road sign fun?
The answer is that the (1,161-page) 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, included new language:
A CMS [changeable message sign] should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing so could adversely affect respect for the sign. Messages with obscure or secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references, unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.
After Arizona officials expressed concern with the new language, a spokesperson for the agency pointed out that the manual language was just “guidance,” not an explicit ban.
These stories illustrate a serious issue with constitutional and practical significance: the practice of federal agencies providing guidance to states and others whom the agencies regulate.
This report describes agency guidance and its legal and practical significance, including legal concerns about its use. It will then describe recent efforts by the national and state governments to respond to these concerns, particularly related to increasing the transparency of this guidance, before concluding with some recommendations.
Impact Analysis: Extended research, data, and policy recommendations from Sutherland experts. For elected officials, public policy experts, and members of the media.
Read More
Will AI kill us in 10 years? | Chris Koopman & Ford Copple
Is AI really on track to destroy humanity, or are we confusing small risks with science fiction? On this episode of Defending Ideas, Nic Dunn sits down with Chris Koopman, CEO of Abundance Institute, and Ford Copple, tech policy analyst at Sutherland Institute, to discuss the growing debate over AI safety, regulation, data centers, and technological innovation.
Massachusetts case raises concerns about government cutting parents out of children’s decisions
When parents pose a threat to children’s safety, the state should act. But ideological disagreements are not a reason to cut parents out of a child’s life.
How Utah Fits All is helping students with special needs and other learning challenges
Education choice programs can change the course of a child’s life, expanding their knowledge and increasing their confidence, especially after a season of struggle with profound challenges. Utah should expand its education choice programs and offerings so more families have these experiences and more children can thrive.

