Congress' Power To Repeal Laws: Understanding Legislative Authority

Congress can repeal a law, and there are several ways to do so. A typical scenario for repealing a law is when the law in question needs to be updated or replaced to be suitable for the modern era. A law can also be repealed when it is no longer effective or has more negative consequences than were originally intended. The process of repealing a law can vary, from a single sentence declaring the law repealed in its entirety to more complex versions that only remove a specific part of the law. Congress must pass a new law with repeal language and the location of the statute in the US Code to repeal any element of an enacted law. This new law can be with or without amendments, and it can also be with or without savings. A repeal without savings eliminates the repealed statute entirely, while a repeal with savings preserves the statute's effects for limited purposes.

Congress must pass a new law to repeal an existing one

Congress has the power to repeal a law, but it must pass a new law to do so. This new law must contain repeal language and specify the location of the statute in the U.S. Code, including the title, chapter, part, section, paragraph, and clause. This process is known as an express repeal and follows the same rules and procedures as passing any other law. Both the House and the Senate must pass the bill, and it may also require the President's signature or a veto override.

The new law can vary in scope, from repealing an entire previous act to only amending a specific sub-clause, sentence, or word. This flexibility allows Congress to make targeted changes to existing laws without affecting other provisions.

In some cases, an implied repeal can occur when two statutes are mutually inconsistent. In such cases, the later statute effectively repeals the earlier one to the extent of their inconsistency. However, courts generally disfavor this approach, requiring that the two acts be "irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that they cannot have concurrent operation."

Congress can also use legislative tools like the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to facilitate the repeal of laws. The CRA creates a "resolution of disapproval" that can bypass procedural hurdles, such as the Senate's 60-vote "filibuster" requirement. However, the CRA has been criticized for not providing substantive guidance on the desired content of the vetoed regulation.

Overall, while Congress has the power to repeal laws, it must follow specific procedures and pass a new law that meets the requirements for an express repeal or relies on the implicit inconsistency with a newer statute.

Implied repeal occurs when two statutes are mutually inconsistent

The repeal of a statute can be either express or implied. Express repeal occurs when a statute expressly mentions that an earlier law will no longer be applicable, and thus, be inoperative. The legislature does not need to use any particular words or phrases, but it must make its intention to repeal the statute in question clear. Phrases like "shall cease to have effect" or "all provisions that are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed" are generally used in the later statute to repeal an existing statute.

Implied repeal, on the other hand, occurs when two statutes are mutually inconsistent. The effect is that the later statute repeals the earlier statute pro tanto (to the extent that it is inconsistent). This is based on the Latin maxim "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which means that later laws shall abrogate earlier laws that are contrary or in conflict with subsequent laws. This usually applies to cases where two or more statutes are mutually inconsistent to such an extent that they cannot be concurrently enforced.

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory, which states that when an Act of Parliament or an Act of Congress (or some other legislature) conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act become legally inoperable. This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "lex posterior derogat priori" or "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which translates to "the later laws shall abrogate the earlier laws that are contrary or in conflict with the subsequent laws".

In some jurisdictions, certain laws may be protected from implied repeal by including a "primacy clause" in the statute, which states that the act in question supersedes all other statutes until it is specifically repealed. Acts with such primacy clauses are called quasi-constitutional.

Removal of secondary legislation is usually referred to as revocation

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, the removal of secondary legislation is referred to as revocation rather than repeal. Secondary legislation is law created by ministers or other bodies under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament. It is used to enforce and implement primary legislation in daily life. For example, governments often use secondary legislation to ban new substances in response to new information about their dangers by adding them to a list under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Statutory Instruments (SIs) are the most common form of secondary legislation. They are documents drafted by a government department to make changes to the law. SIs are published with an explanatory memorandum, which outlines the purpose of the SI and why the change is necessary. Revocation is the equivalent, for SIs, of repealing an Act of Parliament. Only SIs that have already been made can be revoked, and it is possible to revoke only some (rather than all) provisions of an SI. An SI may be revoked by either primary or delegated legislation.

In parliamentary procedure, the motion to rescind, repeal, or annul is used to cancel or countermand an action or order previously adopted by the assembly. A partial repeal occurs when a specified part or provision of a previous Act is repealed but other provisions remain in force. A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned. A repeal with savings preserves the effect of the repealed statute for limited purposes, such as preventing the reversal of any repeals contained within it, or ensuring that rights granted under its authority are retained.

A repeal without replacement is done when a law is no longer effective

Congress can repeal a law, but to do so, it must pass a new law containing repeal language and the repealed law's codified statute location in the U.S. Code. Once a law is repealed, its text is deleted from the Code and replaced by a note summarizing what used to be there.

A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned. For example, the repeal of the Poor Laws in England in 1948 reflected their replacement by modern social welfare legislation.

A repeal without replacement can have significant consequences. For instance, a repeal-without-replace bill regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would cause markets to begin unraveling almost immediately, with large premium spikes, insurer withdrawals, and coverage losses even before the repeal provisions took full effect. It would also provide deep tax cuts to the wealthy, pharmaceutical corporations, and insurers, while millions of people would lose coverage.

A repeal without replacement can also make any subsequent replacement much harder. For example, a repeal-without-replace bill for the ACA would repeal hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes that helped fund the ACA's coverage expansions. As a result, any coverage provisions to replace the ACA's subsidies and Medicaid expansion would require large new offsets, such as significant tax increases or deep spending cuts.

Therefore, while a repeal without replacement can be done when a law is no longer effective, it is essential to carefully consider the potential consequences of such an action.

CRA (Congressional Review Act) is a special form of legislation to repeal a recently issued agency rule

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a law enacted by the United States Congress in 1996. It is a special form of legislation that empowers Congress to review and repeal recently issued agency rules. The CRA creates a "resolution of disapproval" that bypasses the usual procedural hurdles, such as the Senate's 60-vote "filibuster" requirement. This resolution can only be used to repeal a recently issued agency rule, such as a new pollution standard from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Once a rule is repealed through the CRA, the law prohibits the agency from reissuing the same rule or creating a substantially similar one unless specifically authorized by a subsequent law. This is known as the CRA's "lookback" provision, which allows a new president to sign off on resolutions for rules enacted late in their predecessor's administration.

The CRA has been criticized for its potential to reinforce polarization in Congress by facilitating voting along party lines. It has been suggested that the CRA could be reformed to require sponsors of a resolution to identify specific objections to the targeted rule and provide criteria for a replacement.

Despite its potential flaws, the CRA has been invoked multiple times, notably by the Republican-controlled 115th Congress to overturn 14 rules issued under the Obama administration. The success of these resolutions has raised concerns about the legitimacy and stability of rules, potentially creating a climate of uncertainty for those relying on them.

Frequently asked questions