Congressional Review Act use to nullify rules
✅ Overview: What Is the Congressional Review Act?
📜 Enacted:
Congressional Review Act of 1996
Codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 801–808
🔍 Purpose:
The CRA provides Congress with the authority to review and potentially nullify rules issued by federal agencies. It acts as a legislative check on the regulatory power of executive agencies.
✅ Key Provisions of the CRA
Submission Requirement:
Agencies must submit every final rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before it can take effect.
Resolution of Disapproval:
Congress has 60 legislative days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. If both chambers approve it and the President signs it, the rule is nullified.
Effect of Disapproval:
The rule has no legal force or effect.
The agency cannot issue a similar rule without new legislative authority.
Special Fast-Track Procedure in Senate:
Prevents filibuster.
Allows vote by simple majority.
⚖️ Case Law and Applications of the CRA
While very few court cases directly interpret the CRA, its application in Congress has had major legal and regulatory effects. Below are key examples and related cases illustrating how the CRA operates:
1. Gundy v. Lynch (2015) – Background to CRA Enforcement
📝 Facts:
While not a CRA case itself, the court acknowledged the importance of statutory limits on agency discretion, providing support for legislative tools like the CRA.
🔍 Significance:
This case set the stage for stronger scrutiny of agency rulemaking and encouraged Congress to use tools like the CRA to rein in broad or controversial agency rules.
2. CRA Use: Ergonomics Rule (2001)
📜 Rule:
OSHA’s ergonomics rule aimed to prevent workplace musculoskeletal disorders.
⚖️ CRA Action:
First successful use of the CRA.
Resolution of Disapproval passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
The rule was nullified in March 2001.
🔍 Legal Impact:
OSHA was prohibited from issuing any substantially similar rule without new statutory authority.
Established CRA as a powerful deregulatory tool.
3. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, 361 F. Supp. 3d 60 (D.D.C. 2019)
📝 Facts:
Public Citizen challenged Trump’s Executive Order 13771 ("2-for-1" rule requiring two rules be repealed for every new one), arguing it violated the APA.
⚖️ Holding:
The court dismissed the case for lack of standing.
However, the litigation reflected rising tension between executive deregulatory agendas and statutory tools like the CRA.
🔍 CRA Relevance:
The Trump Administration used the CRA to nullify 14 rules in 2017 alone.
This case shows how CRA complements executive deregulatory priorities.
4. CRA Use: Stream Protection Rule (2017)
📜 Rule:
Obama-era rule under the Interior Department that restricted coal mining near waterways.
⚖️ CRA Action:
Nullified by Congress in 2017 and signed by President Trump.
Marked one of the first uses of the CRA after a presidential transition.
🔍 Legal Effect:
Blocked rule permanently.
Interior Department cannot issue a similar rule without new congressional authorization.
5. Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 946 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2019)
📝 Facts:
Environmental groups sued over the rollback of protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act.
⚖️ CRA Implications:
Court recognized that CRA can permanently bar reissuance of similar rules.
Agencies must be careful not to circumvent CRA limitations by issuing "similar" rules under a different label.
6. CRA Use: Broadband Privacy Rule (2017)
📜 Rule:
FCC regulation that restricted internet service providers from collecting consumer data without consent.
⚖️ CRA Action:
Nullified by CRA resolution in April 2017.
Prevented future rules regarding broadband privacy without new legislation.
🔍 Significance:
Highlighted the CRA’s impact on consumer privacy rights.
Courts later dismissed lawsuits challenging data collection, citing lack of regulation due to CRA nullification.
7. Becerra v. Department of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
📝 Facts:
California sued the Department of the Interior for rescinding the Valuation Rule for federal oil, gas, and coal leases.
⚖️ Court Holding:
The agency’s rescission violated the APA because it did not go through proper rulemaking.
However, had Congress used the CRA instead of agency rescission, the rule would have been permanently void.
🔍 Significance:
Highlights distinction between CRA-based revocation (legislative) and agency repeal (subject to APA).
CRA is not subject to judicial review, unlike normal rulemaking.
📌 Summary Table of Key CRA-Related Cases and Applications
| Rule/Case | CRA Action or Legal Outcome | Legal/Policy Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Ergonomics Rule (2001) | First CRA nullification | Blocked OSHA from reissuing similar safety rules |
| Stream Protection Rule (2017) | CRA nullification | Demonstrated CRA’s power to roll back environmental policy |
| Broadband Privacy Rule (2017) | CRA used to nullify FCC rule | Prevented future privacy regulations by FCC |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt (2019) | CRA bar on similar rules upheld | Court recognized legal effect of CRA prohibitions |
| Public Citizen v. Trump (2019) | Indirect support for CRA-based deregulation | Dismissed challenge, reinforcing CRA’s regulatory role |
| Becerra v. DOI (2019) | Rule vacated under APA; CRA would have barred reissue | Emphasized CRA’s finality vs. APA reviewability |
🔐 Legal Limits and Features of the CRA
Not subject to judicial review (5 U.S.C. § 805), though courts have interpreted this narrowly.
Prohibits issuance of substantially similar rules after disapproval.
Often used after a change in administration, within the 60-day legislative window.
Can be used for rules not properly submitted to Congress, even years after issuance (as per GAO opinions).
✅ Conclusion: Power and Impact of the CRA
The Congressional Review Act provides a unique and powerful mechanism for Congress to overturn regulations. While used rarely before 2017, it has since become a central tool in partisan regulatory strategies.
Courts have generally respected the finality and scope of CRA nullifications. Though direct litigation under the CRA is rare, many APA and constitutional cases hinge on whether a rule is still in force or barred due to CRA action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments