Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently invoked this law Washington Examiner:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is vowing to reverse the Obama administration’s final stream-protection rule, a regulation released Monday aimed at trying to protect water resources from coal and other surface mining contamination.
McConnell on Monday said he plans to use a little-known law called the Congressional Review Act to introduce a resolution of disapproval next month to “overturn this egregious regulation and work with my colleagues to use every tool available to turn back this regulatory assault on coal country. “The president’s eight-year war on coal has wrecked the lifeblood of the economy and the livelihoods of coal country workers and their families,” McConnell said.
The little used procedure (it's only been successfully used once Wiki) McConnell is referring to is the Congressional Review Act, introduced back during the Clinton era as part of the Contract With America. It was put forward as a tool to protect small businesses from onerous government regulations which they would generally lack the resources to fight. It is employed by getting a joint resolution from both the House and the Senate which defines a particular rule enacted by an executive branch agency and essentially invalidates it. It's subject to veto, and to veto-overrides.
Has this Public Law ever been challenged in the courts? Are there any Non-Delegation doctrine or separation of power arguments for or against the constitutionality of this act?
I bring up the Non-delegation doctrine precisely because of the following thought experiment. Say Congress does delegate part of it's legislative authority to an agency through an ill-conceived law (or the agency usurps such authority). The remedy should not be just to revoke certain effects of that law through the CRA, i.e. administrative rules, but to correct the usurpation by re-writing and re-passing new, corrective legislation that clarifies the matter.
The separation of powers argument seems more clear. Of course, Congress has a role to play in executive oversight, including setting the budget for enacted legislation. However, having an effective veto-like instrument over executive activity has ramifications beyond such a traditional role. Is there a Constitutional test that preserves legitimate oversight with executive discretion?