So the CRA (Congressional Review Act) has already been law for a while. This isn't a statute they are trying to pass. Here is how it works:
Agencies are delegated power from other branches of government. They can rulemake (legislative art 1 power), enforce (executive art 2 power), and adjudicate claims (judicial article 3 power) depending on what their "organic statute" allows them to do. This is what's known as an "intelligible principal". Here's an example. If congress passes a statute known as the "University Accountability Act" and says they are creating an agency to "rulemake, enforce, adjudicate, and design rules and procedures to foster competent teaching", then that is their intelligible principal and what the agency has to stick by.
OSHA, an executive agency (meaning it's under the DOL which is headed by the executive) is expected to rulemake on this issue in the next few weeks. When making a "major rule" they have to wait 60 days and give the rule to Congress before it goes into effect. During this time, Congress can try to block enforcement of the rule by a joint resolution (meaning both the House and Senate can vote to nullify the mandate), but, it also requires presentment (having the president sign off on it) - so it's a very high bar to stop the rule. If that miraculously DOES happen, then the agency is then prevented from both enforcing that rule and from making a subsequent rule that is largely the same as the previous one.
I highly highly doubt that Republicans are able to stop this rules enforcement because we just don't have the numbers in the Senate or House, and even if we did, we would need to either a) have Bi-Den sign it, or b) override Bi-Den with a veto (2/3 vote).
If the rule goes into effect, I bet private companies sue to block enforcement on one grounds or another.
So the CRA (Congressional Review Act) has already been law for a while. This isn't a statute they are trying to pass. Here is how it works:
Agencies are delegated power from other branches of government. They can rulemake (legislative art 1 power), enforce (executive art 2 power), and adjudicate claims (judicial article 3 power) depending on what their "organic statute" allows them to do. This is what's known as an "intelligible principal". Here's an example. If congress passes a statute known as the "University Accountability Act" and says they are creating an agency to "rulemake, enforce, adjudicate, and design rules and procedures to foster competent teaching", then that is their intelligible principal and what the agency has to stick by.
OSHA, an executive agency (meaning it's under the DOL which is headed by the executive) is expected to rulemake on this issue in the next few weeks. When making a "major rule" they have to wait 60 days and give the rule to Congress before it goes into effect. During this time, Congress can try to block enforcement of the rule by a joint resolution (meaning both the House and Senate can vote to nullify the mandate), but, it also requires presentment (having the president sign off on it) - so it's a very high bar to stop the rule. If that miraculously DOES happen, then the agency is then prevented from both enforcing that rule and from making a subsequent rule that is largely the same as the previous one.
I highly highly doubt that Republicans are able to stop this rules enforcement because we just don't have the numbers in the Senate or House, and even if we did, we would need to either a) have Bi-Den sign it, or b) override Bi-Den with a veto (2/3 vote).
If the rule goes into effect, I bet private companies sue to block enforcement on one grounds or another.