The 119th Congress has used legislative authority to nullify 23 federal agency regulations, representing more than half of all such actions taken since the relevant law was enacted three decades ago. A Congressional Research Service report updated on October 1 confirms that lawmakers have overturned a total of 43 rules using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) since its passage in 1996.
Legislative Oversight Mechanism
The CRA establishes expedited procedures for Congress to review and reject covered agency rules. Before any such rule can take effect, federal agencies are required to submit them to both chambers of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The statute defines a “rule” broadly, encompassing final and interim final rules, as well as guidance documents and policy memoranda.
To overturn a regulation, Congress must pass a joint resolution of disapproval. This resolution requires passage in both the House and Senate, followed by presidential approval or a successful veto override. Once enacted, the overturned rule is treated as if it never took effect. If the rule was already operating, it ceases immediately.
Certain categories are excluded from this review process. The CRA does not apply to rules of particular applicability, those concerning internal agency management or personnel, or procedural rules that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of outside parties. Additionally, presidential actions and agency orders that do not qualify as rules under the statute are exempt.
Restrictions on Agencies
A key provision of the CRA prohibits federal agencies from reissuing an overturned rule in substantially the same form. Agencies also cannot issue a replacement rule that is substantially similar unless Congress specifically authorizes such action. However, the statute does not define what constitutes “substantially the same,” creating ambiguity for regulators and legal observers.
The law explicitly states that determinations, findings, actions, and omissions under the CRA are not subject to judicial review. Most federal appeals courts interpret this provision broadly, barring judicial review of statutory questions arising from the CRA. Multiple appellate courts have rejected challenges based on alleged agency noncompliance with the statute.
Legal Uncertainty Remains
Despite the broad trend in appellate courts, a minority of federal district courts interpret the judicial review restriction narrowly. These lower courts suggest that while congressional actions are insulated from review, agency conduct may still be subject to scrutiny. The CRS report identifies significant uncertainty regarding whether courts can review challenges alleging that an agency’s replacement rule is substantially similar to one previously overturned by Congress.
The concentration of recent activity in the current session highlights the CRA’s role as a tool for legislative oversight. With 23 rules voided in the 119th Congress alone, lawmakers have demonstrated a willingness to use this mechanism to check executive branch regulatory power. The lack of clear definitions regarding “substantially similar” replacements leaves room for future legal disputes, even as the statutory bar on judicial review remains largely intact in higher courts.
The CRS report provides these statistics and legal analyses without attributing them to any specific political faction or administration. The data reflects the mechanical operation of the law over three decades, with a notable acceleration in its use during the current legislative term.