Read on Twitter
I& #39;m working on a literature review for a new project on the Congressional Review Act. Thought I& #39;d share a few of the pieces in a thread that I& #39;ll add to from time to time:
. @sambatkins& #39; 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& #39;s net.
. @dfarber& #39;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 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👆" title="Up pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Up pointing backhand index"> also offers extensive and fascinating political analysis of incentives re: CRA use. Useful to #polisci friends, I think.
The title of @MikeColeDC& #39;s 70 @AdLawReview 53 (2018) "Interpreting the Congressional Review Act: Why the courts should assert judicial review, narrowly construe & #39;substantially the same,& #39; and decline to defer to agencies under Chevron" says it all! Love a good, descriptive title.
. @Adamfinkel0 & Jason Sullivan& #39;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& #39;s more net beneficial (due to changed circumstances *or* changed reg provisions) than the disapproved version should be allowed to pass the test.
