More Than 60 Groups Oppose Unlawful Uses of the Congressional Review Act

September 14, 2026 | Download PDF

The Honorable Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable John Thune, Majority Leader
The Honorable Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

CC: Members of the House and Senate

Dear Speaker Johnson, Democratic Leader Jeffries, Majority Leader Thune, and Minority Leader Schumer:

The undersigned groups urge you to oppose future attempts to improperly use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to seek to overturn agency actions that are clearly not subject to the Act, including H.J. Res. 202, 205, 210, 211, 212, 213 and 214, and S.J. Res 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210. These resolutions seek to disapprove Clean Air Act (CAA) preemption waivers issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the state of California between 2009 and 2025 during previous administrations, explicitly allowed by federal law, that allow California and states that choose to follow California’s lead to implement and enforce protective pollution standards for certain vehicles, small engines, and vessels that are more stringent than corresponding federal standards.

These and other expected resolutions follow Congress’ unprecedented abuse of the CRA in 2025, when Congress improperly voted to disapprove multiple waivers issued to California regarding vehicle pollution standards, leading to litigation. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and 80 organizations warned at that time that using the CRA to unlawfully disapprove California’s clean air waivers would “set a dangerous precedent that could lead to further abuses and non-compliance with the CRA” and “open a ‘Pandora’s box’ that will lay the groundwork for future attempts to misuse, expand, and abuse the CRA.” That is exactly what is occurring now.

We are not taking a collective position on the merits of any of these resolutions, nor do we defend existing CRA procedures. Instead, we write to warn that the CRA’s plain text is being violated to circumvent existing filibuster rules and expedite repeal of safeguards with a simple majority vote and without robust debate.

The CRA limits its review procedures to agency “rules,” as that term is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously determined in 2025 that California CAA waivers are not “rules,” a determination reaffirmed by the Senate parliamentarian. Nonetheless, that same year, Congress ignored GAO and the parliamentarian and improperly disapproved California CAA waivers in violation of the CRA.

In line with the longstanding understanding that waivers were not subject to the CRA, the EPA did not submit the California waivers currently at issue to Congress at the time they were granted. The current EPA, however, now seeks to exploit the new “precedent” by submitting these older California waivers so that they, too, might be improperly rescinded through the CRA. Especially given ongoing litigation and a recent decision adverse to EPA’s position, Congress should respect the legal process and withhold any action on the unlawfully reclassified waivers that EPA recently sent to Congress to allow EPA to comply with the Court order.

The CRA also establishes short time periods for Congress to use the law to review rules. Once those time periods expire, Congress cannot use the CRA to disapprove those rules. As with the narrow definition of “rule,” this clear precondition to using the CRA reflects congressional intent to ensure that use of the CRA to bypass the filibuster is limited.

The waivers at issue were granted to California between 2009 and 2025, and industry had already achieved full compliance with some of them for years before the EPA submitted these actions to Congress. Nevertheless, the EPA chose to submit them in June and July recognizing that this action would technically trigger the start of the review period, despite the fact that Congress had ample opportunity to address the waivers in question through its standard legislative process.

If Congress once more uses the CRA improperly to disapprove these waivers, it will lay the groundwork for the normalization of this misuse. This could extend well beyond the waivers. For example, Congress could continue to apply the CRA improperly to attack other “orders,” as occurred with the repeal of Public Land Order No. 7917 in April 2026, potentially including energy infrastructure permit approvals, approvals of corporate mergers, or approvals of particular drugs.

Using the CRA to seek to disapprove the CAA waivers would also further undermine the role GAO has played in ensuring that federal agencies are complying with the CRA and Congress is not using the CRA in improper fashion. When disputes among members of Congress regarding the CRA’s applicability to agency actions have arisen, members have turned to the GAO as a neutral third party for resolving these disputes. As noted above, consistent with this role, the GAO previously determined that California CAA waivers are not “rules,” but Congress chose to ignore that determination and move ahead with disapproval. If Congress were to proceed with using the CRA against the California waivers again, it would continue to undermine the important role GAO plays as a neutral third party.

We, the undersigned organizations, urge Congress to oppose any attempt to use the CRA to seek to unlawfully disapprove agency actions, including older and fully implemented actions, that are not subject to the CRA. The CRA is a blunt political tool that is being used to undermine vital health, safety, and environmental safeguards. Expanding the CRA beyond its plain language and intent would likely further gut safeguards and related actions with little consideration for potential harm.

Instead of violating the CRA, members of Congress who wish to repeal vital safeguards should proceed through the normal legislative process and ensure robust debate before they make life-altering decisions for American families and businesses.

Sincerely,

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
ACEEE
Affordable Homeownership Foundation Inc.
Americans for Financial Reform
AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Bird Conservancy
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Sustainable Business Network
Breathe Project
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Progressive Reform
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Campaign
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Earthjustice Action
Economic Policy Institute
EDF Action
Endangered Species Coalition
FFRF Action Fund
Georgia Advancing Communities Together, Inc.
GreenLatinos
Greenpeace USA
Guardians of the Wolves
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
Information Trust
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
International Union, UAW
League of Conservation Voters
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health Inc
Moms Clean Air Force
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients)
National Consumers League
National Health Law Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservation Research
Oceana
Oregon Consumer League
People Power United
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Plug In America
Public Citizen
Public Knowledge
Rachel Carson Council
Resource Renewal Institute
Rise Economy
Sierra Club
Southern Environmental Law Center
The Wilderness Society
Third Act New Jersey
Tzedek DC
Union of Concerned Scientists
Until Justice Data Partners
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
Yaak Valley Forest Council