Press Release

PLF steps up to defend Congressional Review Act in court

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA;  MAY 4, 2017:  Pacific Legal Foundation has just stepped forward to defend the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the 1996 statute that allows Congress to rein in bureaucracies by voiding harmful regulations.

PLF is the first of two groups to move to intervene against a federal lawsuit by an environmental activist group — the Center for Biological Diversity — which claims, astonishingly, that Congress and the president violate the Constitution when they pass a law that rescinds a bureaucracy’s regulation.  With its motion to intervene, PLF has also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that CBD’s challenge has no basis in the Constitution, the Congressional Review Act, or court precedent and should be immediately booted out of court.  PLF is the only group in the litigation that has sought a dismissal.

“CBD’s lawsuit seeks to turn the Constitution on its head, placing unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats above Congress,” said PLF attorney Jonathan Wood.  “Under our Constitution, administrative agencies only have power that Congress chooses to delegate to them.  Congress is free to limit its delegation of power as it sees fit.  What Congress gives, it can take away, or curtail.  Using the Congressional Review Act to strike down an agency’s regulatory decrees is an example of that constitutional principle in action.”

Under the CRA, agencies must submit every rule they adopt to Congress for review.  Congress then has a brief time to use expedited procedures to enact a resolution of disapproval and send it to the president for his signature.  Congress and President Trump have used the CRA 13 times to void Obama Administration rules.  CBD’s lawsuit focuses on the rescinding of a regulation against hunting and trapping of predator species in Alaska’s national refuges — a restriction that interfered with the state’s ability to manage wildlife and outlawed responsible hunting practices, undermining opportunities to responsibly hunt for food or pursue income from guided hunts.

In seeking to intervene in Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, in defense of the CRA’s constitutionality, PLF represents itself along with several key hunting organizations and individuals.  They include:  Alaska Outdoor Council, Big Game Forever, and Alaska Master Guides Kurt Whitehead and Joe Letarte, both of whom also hunt in their personal time.

CRA is fully consistent with the Constitution

“Schoolhouse Rock has taught generations of children how a bill becomes a law under the Constitution,” said Todd Gaziano, PLF’s DC Director and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, as well as the director of PLF’s Red Tape Rollback project.  “CBD could use a refresher.  When a majority of both houses of Congress pass a bill disapproving an agency rule and the president signs it, we call that a law, and this applies as much to legislation passed under the CRA as to any other form of legislation.  Laws enacted using the Congressional Review Act’s procedures are fully consistent with the Constitution.”

PLF’s intervention in this litigation reflects its established role as a leading CRA champion.  The Red Tape Rollback project, founded and overseen by PLF, is a multipronged program to educate Congress and the public on dynamic ways to deploy the CRA against regulatory overreach.  A significant coalition of think tanks and public interest groups has joined this project, including The Club for Growth, The Heritage Foundation, The Buckeye Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and State Policy Network as Founding Partners; and Cause of Action Institute, R Street, Independent Women’s Forum, and Center of the American Experiment as Partners.

“The Congressional Review Act is essential to restoring our elected representatives to their proper role overseeing the administrative state,” Gaziano said.  “As the foremost independent advocate for strategic use of the CRA, and as a leading litigator against regulatory abuses by the administrative state in general, PLF brings a unique interest and expertise to this litigation.  For this reason, PLF’s intervention is more than appropriate — it is essential.”

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation, America’s most powerful ally for justice, litigates in courts nationwide for limited government, property rights, individual liberty, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations.  PLF represents all clients free of charge.

Case Attorneys

Todd F. Gaziano

Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research, and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers

Todd Gaziano joined PLF in 2014. He is the Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research, and he directs PLF’s Center for the Separation of Powers. Todd has served in … ›

View profile

Jeffrey W. McCoy


Jeff McCoy is an attorney at PLF’s office in Sacramento, where he works on cases involving environmental regulations and private property rights. Prior to joining PLF, Jeff was a staff … ›

View profile

Jonathan Wood


Jonathan Wood is an attorney at PLF’s DC Center, where he litigates environmental, property rights, and constitutional cases. He is passionate about finding constitutional, effective, and fair solutions to environmental … ›

View profile

Oliver J. Dunford


Oliver Dunford joined PLF’s office in Sacramento in March 2017. He litigates across the country to defend and advance individual liberty and the rule of law. Oliver’s cases involve the … ›

View profile

Case Commentary

See all posts

By Oliver J. Dunford

Federal Court in Alaska agrees with PLF and dismisses challenge to the Congressional Review Act

PLF scored another victory against bureaucratic overreach yesterday, when the federal court in Alaska dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act. This dismissal is PLF’s latest success … ›

Read more

By Oliver J. Dunford

PLF files another—and hopefully the last—brief against a challenge to the Congressional Review Act

PLF filed a Reply brief in support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, a case that challenges Congress’ use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Department of Interior regulation (Refuges Rule) that had severely restricted certain types of hunting in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges.

Read more

Yes, Trump can revoke national monuments

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has finally completed a months-long review of dozens of controversial national monuments, recommending major changes to 10 monuments, including shrinking six and relaxing regulation of the other four

Before the specific recommendations became public, the president’s opponents were already threatening lawsuits, claiming the president has no authority to change existing monuments With the recommendations now public, it is only a matter of time before the litigation floodgates open

Everyone should take a deep breath There are many reasons to criticize the president, but embracing tenuous legal theories for the sake of political expediency is a mistake

The conflict over the Antiquities Act — the 1906 law governing

Read more