Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 74

Do High-Cost Regulations Need a Judicial Review Before Going Into Effect?

Argument in favor

There needs to be an opportunity for interested parties to request a judicial review of a soon-to-be final regulation when the rule’s cost to America’s economy exceeds $1 billion.

···
01/26/2017
Yes because (1) this is a check on an otherwise unchecked power of the executive branch to essentially pass non-congressional legislation, (2) when it says that a regulation "costs the American economy $1 billion," keep in mind that "the economy" is ultimately you and me, and (3) all regulation should be subject to review and dismissal, as it is all unconstitutional.
Like (24)
Follow
Share
01/27/2017
Both Congress and the president will have an opportunity in 2017 to roll back costly new rules that have been imposed on the American people by the outgoing administration. One powerful tool they can use to accomplish this task is the Congressional Review Act. This long-neglected tool provides Congress with the power to swiftly remove months of Obama administration rules from the books, and to help ensure that they don’t come back. Congress should be aggressive in employing the authority embedded in this statute.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
Matt's Opinion
···
01/07/2017
The president-elect has made misleading, fantastical promises to supporters, made enemies of fellow Americans, flirts treasonously with foreign powers, and shown a psychologically-questionable judgement that threatens our national security, global influence, and economic stability. Like never before in American history, we should extend congressional common sense oversight--even from patriotic Republicans--over the executive branch.
Like (10)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

People or businesses that want to comment on pending regulations already have plenty of chances to have their voices heard long before a regulation take effect.

Jeff's Opinion
···
01/26/2017
Under existing law, any person -- corporate or natural -- can already sue for judicial review of any regulation after it passes. However, virtually the only type of plaintiff that sues to invalidate regulations are big business mess and their interest groups. This bill would provide big businesses and their interest groups yet another way to prevent health, safety, environmental protection, and financial stability regulations from becoming law. Business groups are already very successful at stifling safeguard regulations they don't agree with. For example, since 2010, investment bankers have successfully invalidated most regulations passed to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Regulations are already subject to layers upon layers of review under the Administrative Procedure Act and similar laws and Executive Orders -- many of which can be reviewed at any time after the bill passes. Don't give big businesses yet another advantage in blocking safeguard regulations. Don't give them control over whether safeguards they disagree with can take effect at all.
Like (46)
Follow
Share
Joe's Opinion
···
01/26/2017
Given the fact that it's co-signers are strictly Republicans, this bill seems to be very partisan. That alone makes me a bit suspicious. A real world example of how this would play out: Republicans would have loved to have had this in place prior to ACA/Obamacare because they could just continue to throw lawsuits at it until the Sun burns out.
Like (26)
Follow
Share
sandydubya's Opinion
···
01/26/2017
Much rather see a Legislative review to make certain the intent of the originating law was met. It's bad enough that we have courts legislating from the bench to begin with. Much rather see the Article 1 project make the Congress do their job, and not let bureaucrats be unelected lawmakers.
Like (15)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 74?

This bill — known as the REVIEW Act — would require federal agencies to delay high-impact regulations from going into effect until the public has 60 days to request a judicial review of the regulation. A “high-impact” regulation would be defined as any rule that imposes an annual cost of at least $1 billion on the economy, as determined by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

If a legal challenge is filed within 60 days of the regulation’s publication, a hold would be put in place so the judicial review can proceed. If there’s no request for a judicial review within 60 days of the final rule appearing in the Federal Register, it would be allowed to go into effect.

Impact

People and businesses wishing to file a public comment on a pending regulation; federal agencies with regulations that are soon-to-be final; and courts.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 74

During the 114th Congress the CBO estimated that enacting this legislation could increase spending, but it has no basis for determining the budgetary impact.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) introduced this bill to prevent regulations from taking effect that may be reversed by legal challenges that are still pending:

“Agency rules can become effective while the legal process is underway and the costs to our economy are immediately incurred. These costs are significant and if the regulations are ultimately overturned, the damage is irreversible. Businesses across the country have no way of recovering the billions of dollars incurred in compliance costs. Those costs kill jobs, and prevent investment in our infrastructure and economy. The REVIEW Act provides certainty to the regulatory process, by halting billion dollar regulations until the legal proceedings surrounding their legitimacies and costs have concluded.”

House Democrats opposed this bill in the Judiciary Committee during the last Congress on the grounds that it would “severely undermine the efficiency of the rulemaking system” and would allow a regulation’s opponents to simply file lawsuits to delay it. Five of the Democrats on the committee joined to author the following explanation for their opposition to this bill:

“As with nearly every other anti-regulatory bill measure that the Committee has considered this Congress, [this bill] completely ignores the benefits of regulation and well-established law that shapes the rulemaking process. Rather than improving this process, the bill is simply a blatant effort to prevent the implementation of rules.”

This legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee on an 18-13 party-line vote in the last Congress before being passed 244-180 in the House. The Senate didn't vote on the bill before the conclusion of the 114th Congress. 

All of the current version of the bill’s 30 cosponsors are Republicans.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: National Archives / Creative Commons)

AKA

Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2017

Official Title

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017
    Yes because (1) this is a check on an otherwise unchecked power of the executive branch to essentially pass non-congressional legislation, (2) when it says that a regulation "costs the American economy $1 billion," keep in mind that "the economy" is ultimately you and me, and (3) all regulation should be subject to review and dismissal, as it is all unconstitutional.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Under existing law, any person -- corporate or natural -- can already sue for judicial review of any regulation after it passes. However, virtually the only type of plaintiff that sues to invalidate regulations are big business mess and their interest groups. This bill would provide big businesses and their interest groups yet another way to prevent health, safety, environmental protection, and financial stability regulations from becoming law. Business groups are already very successful at stifling safeguard regulations they don't agree with. For example, since 2010, investment bankers have successfully invalidated most regulations passed to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Regulations are already subject to layers upon layers of review under the Administrative Procedure Act and similar laws and Executive Orders -- many of which can be reviewed at any time after the bill passes. Don't give big businesses yet another advantage in blocking safeguard regulations. Don't give them control over whether safeguards they disagree with can take effect at all.
    Like (46)
    Follow
    Share
    Given the fact that it's co-signers are strictly Republicans, this bill seems to be very partisan. That alone makes me a bit suspicious. A real world example of how this would play out: Republicans would have loved to have had this in place prior to ACA/Obamacare because they could just continue to throw lawsuits at it until the Sun burns out.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Both Congress and the president will have an opportunity in 2017 to roll back costly new rules that have been imposed on the American people by the outgoing administration. One powerful tool they can use to accomplish this task is the Congressional Review Act. This long-neglected tool provides Congress with the power to swiftly remove months of Obama administration rules from the books, and to help ensure that they don’t come back. Congress should be aggressive in employing the authority embedded in this statute.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Much rather see a Legislative review to make certain the intent of the originating law was met. It's bad enough that we have courts legislating from the bench to begin with. Much rather see the Article 1 project make the Congress do their job, and not let bureaucrats be unelected lawmakers.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    The president-elect has made misleading, fantastical promises to supporters, made enemies of fellow Americans, flirts treasonously with foreign powers, and shown a psychologically-questionable judgement that threatens our national security, global influence, and economic stability. Like never before in American history, we should extend congressional common sense oversight--even from patriotic Republicans--over the executive branch.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    The management of regulations is the responsibility of the Executive branch of government, not the Judicial branch. The Constitution separates the powers of the federal government for a good reason! The term "trias politica" or "separation of powers" was coined by Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, an 18th century French social and political philosopher. His publication, Spirit of the Laws, is considered one of the great works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, and it inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Constitution of the United States. Under his model, the political authority of the state is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. He asserted that, to most effectively promote liberty, these three powers must be separate and acting independently. Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I believe any regulation that adds a cost of over one million dollars should need congressional approval. If the regulation is not taken up by congress and voted in the affirmative it does not go into affect.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Anything that halts or slows new rules from the federal govt from going into effect is ok by me.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    All and any new regulations needs close scrutiny regardless of costs. More time, the better to read the fine print.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulations for decades now have turned into nasty partisan politics on both sides of the aisle, democrat and republican. Neither party has the monopoly on this but the pieces on the game board are the livelihoods and success of corporations, businesses and hard working Americans. The power brokers, lobbyists and career politicians dealing out favors and kickbacks to those who help push burdensome regulation in order to justify big government and regulatory bodies have become ludicrous. This could be a check and balance to counter such bad regulations.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    All EOs need a judicial review
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Checks and balances is our way.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This is the sneaky administration...we need extra time to cut through the misinformation and outright lies!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Quoted from Tucker for emphasis: "Yes because (1) this is a check on an otherwise unchecked power of the executive branch to essentially pass non-congressional legislation, (2) when it says that a regulation "costs the American economy $1 billion," keep in mind that "the economy" is ultimately you and me, and (3) all regulation should be subject to review and dismissal, as it is all unconstitutional." It would be great if this app would include the text of the constitution as many cite it in support of what are actually unconstitutional powers used by the executive branch.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a political roadblock to would-be meaningful and helpful legislation.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Judicial checks are fundamental to democracy.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Only because these regulations are supposed to be overseen by the part of government that the Constitution grants the most power to. CONGRESS!!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulatory policy needs to be kept separate from politics. Support regulatory independence!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If you have children and grandchildren, please think of their future when casting your votes!!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE