Administrative Law

Will Democrats Learn to Love the Congressional Review Act?

The CRA may offer Democrats a quick and easy way to repeal Trump Administration regulations, if they are willing to use it.


The Biden Administration is working quickly to undo the regulatory policies of the Trump Administration. Through a torrent of Executive Orders, President Biden has shifted the federal government's regulatory priorities and instructed agencies to evaluate which Trump Administration agencies need to be rescinded or revised. Yet unwinding Trump Administration regulations will take time--generally as much time as it took to adopt such regulations in the first place--and the new administration is in a hurry.

The Congressional Review Act offers one means through which the Biden Administration, with the cooperation of Democrats in Congress, may undo Trump regulations without having to go through administrative rulemakings. The CRA may only be used on those regulations adopted at the tail end of the prior Administration. Nonetheless, there are literally hundreds of vulnerable Trump Administration regulations.

Enacted in 1996, the CRA creates an expedited procedure for congressional repeal of recently adopted regulations through the passage of a joint resolution in both houses of Congress. CRA resolution are subject to bicameralism and presentment, like normal legislation, but are much easier to enact. Under the CRA's express terms, resolutions to repeal a regulation are not subject to filibusters or extended floor debate, and final votes cannot be blocked by the Senate leadership. Indeed, even had Democrats not prevailed in the Georgia Senate races, Democrats could have used the CRA to force Republicans to vote on the advisability of controversial Trump policies.

The CRA was only used successfully to repeal one federal regulation in its first twenty years on the books--the Clinton Administration's 2000 ergonomics rule. Four years ago, however, the GOP used the CRA to eliminate over a dozen Obama regulations early in Trump's term. This year, Democrats cold use the CRA to eliminate an even greater number of Trump rules, if they so choose.

What regulations are vulnerable to CRA repeal? Any regulation finalized on or after August 21, 2020, according to the folks at the GW Regulatory Studies Center. As it turns out, this is a good amount of regulations. Indeed, nearly 1,500 final rules were finalized in that time period, including over 150 from the Environmental Protection Agency. In short, there are plenty of potential CRA targets, several of which are profiled here.

Not only is using the CRA much quicker than repealing rules through the regulatory process, it is less risky too. Repealing a regulation and promulgating a replacement is not only lengthy processes. They are also subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. CRA resolutions, on the other hand, are not subject to judicial review. Congress need not go through a notice-and-comment period, nor need it construct a rulemaking record for a court to review. If Congress wants a regulation subject to the CRA gone, Congress may use the CRA to repeal it.

One potential catch is that if a CRA resolution passes and is signed by the President, agencies are barred from reissuing the rejected rule or its equivalent, absent subsequent Congressional authorization. This means that a Trump rule nixed now could not be re-adopted by Ha(w)ley administration in the future. This also means Biden administration can't simply re-issue Obama rules nixed by CRA in 2017. But the scope of this prohibition has yet to be tested, and it's unclear how different a new rule needs to be. Courts have yet to confront this.

Some skeptics of the CRA fear that using this method to repeal Trump Administration rules would prevent the Biden Administration from adopting more stringent replacements. Despite the lack of judicial guidance on this question, I think these fears are overstated.

The text of the CRA bars federal agencies from promulgating regulations that are "substantially the same" as those repealed through the CRA. The idea is that if Congress disapproves of a rule, it would be improper for an agency to act contrary to congressional intent. The disapproval resolution, in effect, eliminates any delegated authority the agency might have to adopt that rule.

Yet the CRA's language is not that of a broad preemption provision. It does not bar agencies from regulating on the same subject. Rather it bars agencies from re-adopting an equivalent rule. Applied sensibly, this limitation may prevent the Biden Administration from adopting a marginally more stringent variant of a repealed Trump rule, but would not prevent the Biden Administration from adopting a new regulation representing a different set of policy priorities or regulatory philosophy. It is not enough that the old and new rule have some similarity or overlap. They must be "substantially the same."

While the current focus is on how the CRA could be used to undo Trump regulations, it is important to note that the CRA could also be used by Republicans to challenge controversial Biden Administration regulations. Given the tight margins in both the House and Senate, a particularly progressive regulatory measure (or simply one opposed by West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and similarly situated members of the House) could be subject to a CRA resolution. Such a resolution would not be enacted, as President Biden would almost certainly veto it, but it would be an opportunity for Republicans to force Democrats to take a vote on a controversial rule.

For much of its existence, the CRA was an an afterthought, a scarcely invoked statute. Republicans unearthed the CRA to undo late Obama rules in 2017, and it is quite possible that Democrats will do the same to undo Trump rules in 2021. It is a quick and relatively easy way to undo regulations adopted by the prior administration. And if Democrats are insistent on de-Trumpifying federal regulatory policy, I would expect them to use it.

NEXT: No Copyright or Defamation Liability for Bulk Move of Social Network Community to New Site

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please, don't forget the 72 million Trump voters, the 65 million gun owners of 300 million guns, and the law of nature that government does nothing well.

    1. 80 million Trump voters when you include the shredded ballots.

      And it's 65 million LAWFUL gun owners of 300 million LEGAL guns -- in addition to all the guns that the criminals have. The left tends to forget about the illegal guns which are also out there.

      That said, I have no doubt that this administration is going to overstep, very quickly, and that it won't even take until 2022 for them to be neutered. The Trump Impeachment trial could do it -- particularly if the FBI knew about the conspiracy to take over the Capitol and didn't stop it -- or if Pelosi prevented them from doing so. The latter is a very real possibility, and a rather nasty scandal that Trump would have every right to raise as a defense.

      FBI guys are talking about a conspiracy -- that they knew about in advance -- in sworn affidavits and such that are public court documents. Make a martyr out of Trump and he'll scream "FBI corruption" and the FBI will blame the House Sergent at Arms for not letting them be in the Capitol to stop this, and that goes right back to Nancy Pelosi.

      Like it was said during Watergate, Pelosi's the one...

      1. You live in a conspiracy addled fantasy land.

        1. Russian collusion says hi.

          1. Name calling violates the Fallacy of Irrelevance. What are you, in fourth grade? Grow up.

            1. Save your admonition for people who buy into childishly ludicrous 'stop the steal' conspiracy stories concocted to sooth the fragile ego of a sore loser.

            2. Once more, you halfwit: one cannot "violate a fallacy."

          2. Some of you guys are going to find it difficult to handle a Russia-related investigation and prosecution of Trump, as outlined by George Conway today and contemplated by Robert Mueller a couple of years back.

      2. A person who proclaims as a certainty that for which no credible evidence exists (in this case, 8 million shredded Trump ballots) reveals him or herself to be a liar, a fool, and/or just seriously unhinged.

  2. Please, don't forget Article I, Section 1, giving all lawmaking powers to the Congress, the non-delegation doctrine, and the established quackery of regulations, in violation of the right to procedural due process in the Fifth Amendment, voiding all executive regulations.

  3. Please, don't forget that regulations are as punitive as criminal punishments, destroy our economy, and have horrifying unintended consequences, like the murder of millions of poor people around the world.

  4. "Ha(w)ley"? I'm guessing this is meant as a joke, or snark, or an insult, or SOMETHING, but, whoosh, right over my head.

    1. Nikki Haley wants to be president. Maybe Josh Hawley does too.

      1. Ah, thanks, now I get it.

  5. Under the CRA's express terms, resolutions to repeal a regulation are not subject to filibusters or extended floor debate, and final votes cannot be blocked by the Senate leadership.

    I don’t see how that could possibly be constitutional, since the constitution says each house can adopt its own rules and you can’t bind a future Congress.

    1. Any dispute that would arise from the rule change would be a political question and unreviewable by the courts, so its entirely up to congress to decide if it is constitutional or not.

      But certainly the substance, congress can pass laws that strip the regulatory state of some power, is constitutional.

    2. re: "you can’t bind a future Congress"

      Sure you can. You just can't bind them to a higher degree than was used in the binding. The limits in the CRA are constitutional because Congress can pass a law to release those limits as easily as they imposed them. But until Congress does amend the CRA, those rules remain in effect.

  6. I love the propublica list linked to, I mean, every single regulation is annotated with a left wing criticism, which is fine, propublica is left wing and they have every right to be.

    But when the regulation is left wing, such as making debt collectors liable, which seems like a pretty big deal ... the criticism is, oh it doesn't go far enough. I mean come on guys. Even a progressive government can't simply ban debt collection through the power of a last minute regulation alone ...

    1. Propublica is a Soros hate speech propaganda outlet, with an editor paid $600,000 by the Open Society Foundation. It has the credibility of the David Duke website, and is less ethical. Duke is honest about his hate. They falsely claim to be objective, professional journalists.

      1. You are a propaganda outlet.

        Upgrade your software, or get an educated Russian to type your sentences for you.

          1. Putin does hate himself some Soros, and with good reason.

  7. I'm looking at what Biden has done so far and I'm not impressed with his actions...or to say I'm impressed with how damaging they are.

    He's repealed XO 13950, which directed that the Gov and it's contractors which prohibited racist training. So apparently now the Gov & Contractors can promote racism in it's training regime.

    He's suspended XO 13920, which directed securing the power grid against China placing equipment & backdoors in our operating equipment.

    He's undermining the rule of law by repealing XO 13892, which required fair notice of rule changes and prohibited using "guidance" as a law. He is also hiding the guidance & removing transparency by repealing 13891.

    And then there's others but those are the main tragedies.

Please to post comments