No time constraints for rolling back regulations
One key provision of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires streamlined procedures in the Senate when it votes to overturn an agency regulation. Specifically, when a resolution is referred to the Senate floor, it cannot be amended nor filibustered, and debate on the resolution is limited to a maximum of 10 hours.
Some reporters and Hill staff, however, mistakenly believe that the maximum 10 hour period for Senate debate cannot be reduced further without unanimous consent or a supermajority vote. This is incorrect. The relevant CRA provision limits debate on a CRA resolution “to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable.” So, any Senator can move to limit debate time to under 10 hours.
Because such a motion is “not debatable,” it must be immediately voted on and only requires a simple majority to pass. Under traditional Senate procedures, a vote on a motion or resolution only occurs with unanimous consent or after 60 Senators vote to “invoke cloture,” which is a special motion to cut off debate. But when a motion cannot be debated, no cloture vote is required to cut off debate on it. As a result, a majority of Senators can vote to set the debate time on a CRA resolution of disapproval to any amount under 10 hours, including setting no debate time.
Senators should not feel constrained by a perceived requirement to give every CRA resolution 10 hours of debate time. Some rules may merit that much attention before an up-or-down vote, but the resolutions of disapproval themselves are not amendable, and the Senate rarely allocates 10 hours of debate to an unamendable, one-paragraph resolution. Ultimately, the CRA allows a bare majority of senators to decide the amount of precious floor time each resolution will receive (up to 10 hours) and how many regulations are rolled back.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.