This piece originally appeared at Prototyping Politics.
A recent New York Times article highlighted a brewing battle in Congress over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) waivers that allow California to set stricter vehicle emissions standards. While the public debate focuses on climate policy, the real procedural story is about the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to challenge agency actions — and whether EPA waivers count as “rules” under the CRA.
The core question in this fight is who decides whether the CRA can be used for a particular executive branch action. The answer: Congress decides—and ultimately, this is a political question, not a legal one. Before we jump into all that, let’s quickly review the process around the CRA.
CRA background and process
The CRA, enacted in 1996, gives Congress a powerful tool to review and potentially nullify federal agency rules within 60 legislative days. If a joint resolution of disapproval passes both chambers and is signed by the President (or survives a veto), the rule is voided, and the agency is barred from issuing a “substantially similar” rule without new legislative authority.
