Liberal judges on a federal appeals court have struck a significant blow against one of Congress’s primary tools for controlling federal agencies: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA equips Congress to repeal regulations and prohibits agencies from reinstating those same regulations or others that are “substantially similar.” This mechanism is vital for protecting American workers and businesses from excessive regulations that can stifle growth and productivity.
Senator Eric Schmitt criticized the court’s ruling, calling it a threat to congressional authority. “Led by liberal judges, a federal court just undermined one of Congress’s most powerful tools to rein in the Administrative State,” Schmitt stated. This ruling, according to him, empowers unelected officials to impose rules that both Congress and the President have rejected.
The context dates back to 2017, when Congress, with President Trump in office, used the CRA to repeal numerous Obama-era regulations. This action generated substantial savings and reduced bureaucratic hurdles for American enterprises. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has attempted to reincorporate these repealed regulations since the Biden administration took office, effectively disregarding the will expressed through the CRA.
Companies affected by the FCC’s actions rightfully challenged this unprecedented move in court. They highlighted that the agency had no legal grounds to reinstate regulations that Congress had expressly eliminated. The court’s decision to uphold the FCC’s actions hinged on a questionable interpretation: it deemed the new regulation different enough from the old to bypass the CRA’s restrictions.
Schmitt used an analogy to describe the court’s reasoning. He compared it to a mother telling her son he can’t stay out past 11 PM. If the son stays out past midnight but claims he is alone, the court’s logic suggests he hasn’t broken the rule—a clear misapplication of common sense. Similarly, Congress and the President directed the FCC not to regulate certain areas, yet the agency attempted to apply rules selectively, much like a child trying to outsmart a parent.
The implications of this ruling are significant. Without intervention from higher courts, unelected bureaucrats will continue to navigate around legislative decisions, undermining the principle of separation of powers. Schmitt urged the 6th Circuit court to reconsider this ruling and called for the Supreme Court to step in as a necessary check on this judicial overreach. The CRA, he argued, needs robust protections to ensure that Congress retains its authority over administrative actions.
"*" indicates required fields
