Constitution
The Committee on the Judiciary plays an important role in protecting people's constitutional rights and-when the Constitution falls short of its promise "to form a more perfect Union"-in amending the Constitution. In the 116th Congress, the Committee passed a resolution to revoke the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and held hearings on state efforts to curb people's constitutional right to an abortion, the lasting negative impact of Citizens United on our campaign finance system, the constitutional role of the pardon power, and opportunities to reform presidential clemency. The Committee also filed several lawsuits to uphold its constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. In the 117th Congress, the Committee will continue to build on these accomplishments and further the Constitution's promise of a more perfect Union.
More on Constitution
H.R. 3438, the "Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2016," would stay the enforcement of any rule imposing an annual cost to the economy in excess of $1 billion pending judicial review.
Notwithstanding the bill's colorful short title, H.R. 3438 would have a pernicious impact on rulemaking and the ability of agencies to respond to critical health and safety issues.
In essence, the bill would encourage anyone who wants to delay a significant rule from going into effect by simply seeking judicial review of the rule.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4768, the "Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016."
By eliminating judicial deference to agency determinations, the bill would make the already ossified rulemaking process even more time-consuming and costly, threatening the ability of federal regulatory agencies to protect public health and safety.
This is true for several reasons. Ironically, for a bill that purports to "restore" separation of powers, H.R. 4768 actually raises separation of power concerns.
The House Judiciary Committee has announced a markup for Thursday, July 7, 2016. Below is the Committee's schedule for the week of July 5-8, 2016.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6
10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet
Hearing on: "The Judicial Branch and the Efficient Administration of Justice"
Witness:
- Mr. James Duff, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
2237 Rayburn House Office Building
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) today released the following joint statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision, which ruled that Texas' abortion law was unconstitutional:
U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, issued the following joint statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States failed to reach a majority decision on the United States v. Texas case:
"Today the Supreme Court issued a split decision that sets no precedent but leaves in place a lower court preliminary injunction blocking the President's immigration executive actions.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, upholding affirmative action programs at the University of Texas at Austin. House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) released the following joint statement:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22
10:00 a.m. Full Committee
Hearing on: "Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Part II"
Witnesses:
H.R. 4768, the "Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016," would eliminate judicial deference to agencies and require federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis.
As a result, the bill would empower a judge to override the determinations of agency experts and to substitute his or her judgment, regardless of the judge's technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter.