Read on Twitter
I'm working on a literature review for a new project on the Congressional Review Act. Thought I'd share a few of the pieces in a thread that I'll add to from time to time:
. @sambatkins' piece "Congress Strikes Back: The Institutionalization of the Congressional Review Act" 45 @MH_Law_Review 351 (2019) parses out eras of CRA usage, from infancy to weaponization, with lots of color about various rules that got caught up in the CRA's net.
. @dfarber's "Regulatory Review in Anti-Regulatory Times" 94 @ChiKentLRev 383 (2019) finds that cost-benefit analysis does not seem to have motivated recent use of the CRA to disapprove rules.
"Regulation in Transition" 104 @MinnesotaLawRev 1 (2019) by @bdavisnoll & Ricky Revesz describes various rollback methods used by the Trump administration and argue that CRA disapprovals were the most effective tool used.
This piece 
also offers extensive and fascinating political analysis of incentives re: CRA use. Useful to #polisci friends, I think.
also offers extensive and fascinating political analysis of incentives re: CRA use. Useful to #polisci friends, I think.
The title of @MikeColeDC's 70 @AdLawReview 53 (2018) "Interpreting the Congressional Review Act: Why the courts should assert judicial review, narrowly construe 'substantially the same,' and decline to defer to agencies under Chevron" says it all! Love a good, descriptive title.
. @Adamfinkel0 & Jason Sullivan's "A Cost-Benefit Interpretation of the "Substantially Similar" Hurdle in the CRA: Can OSHA Ever Utter the E-Word (Ergonomics) Again?" 63 @AdLawReview 707 (2011) offers 7 possible interps of the substantially the same test in the CRA, ultimately...
...arguing that a rule that's more net beneficial (due to changed circumstances *or* changed reg provisions) than the disapproved version should be allowed to pass the test.
