Democrats are relying on a recent memo from the Administration’s Accountability Agency to argue that President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans are unable to pass a bill that repeals Biden-era waivers that allow California to authorize electric vehicles in the state. [emphasis, links added]
But legal experts say the memorandum (the author includes a well-known Dei activist) is not legally binding and relies on suspicious reasoning.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) (GAO) published earlier this month a memorandum earlier this month amid Democratic Senators Adam Schiff (California), Alex Padilla (California) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) demanded the issue.
The memorandum then determined a bill to reverse the Biden-era action was “illegal” and the office therefore “blocked” such a bill.
The office’s memo presents potential obstacles to Trump’s energy agenda, with the main purpose of revoking the EV mission.
Democrats cheered on the comment immediately after they made it available, and he might ask Senate members to weigh the trade-offs and consult the GAO on the issue.
If Democrats successfully use the opinion to block the bill, the authorization of California electric vehicles can only be overturned through the formal Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking process that will take years to complete and can cause legal challenges.
However, experts say there are key legal flaws in high opinion.
“It’s just sloppy work.” Michael Buschbacher, former legal counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, told Washington Free Beacon. “I think what they do is to insert themselves into the process.”
The rapid turnaround of the document raises questions about the level of participation of Democratic lawmakers who requested the opinion –It usually takes several months for the office to complete the analysis, not weeks.
It is worth noting that one of the co-authors of the GAO memo is Shirley Jones, the office’s associate attorney.
Jones, an outspoken DEI activist who recently served as president of Black advocacy group in the administration, had praised former President Joe Biden for Dei's executive order in the federal workforce, and said in a 2021 interview that women working in the administration face “micro attacks” and are often “influenced by men.”
In December, during the final action during the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency granted California exemptions under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which allowed it to issue vehicle emission regulations that are stricter than federal emission standards, which greened the state's electric vehicle authorizations, which will begin later this year.
The exemption allows other states to adopt California rules, something 12 states choose to do.
According to a memo from GAO written by Jones, the Biden administration’s actions are not subject to the CRA (CRA) solution because it is an exemption, not a rule or regulation.
The CRA allows Congress to pass a simple majority vote to pass a resolution to reverse action finalized by federal agencies.
The successful CRA resolution will immediately overturn the Biden-era immunity and California’s mission, meaning the Trump EPA doesn’t have to overturn it through a formal rulemaking process, which could take years and create legal challenges.
Such a resolution is the Trump administration’s preferred action plan – in February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin submitted an exemption to Congress for Congress to review.
A month ago, Rep. John Joyce (R., Pennsylvania) proposed a preservation option in the Vehicle Procurement Act, a CRA resolution that could overturn immunities and prepare for floor votes in the near future.
Just like [GAO] Basically, I wrote a column…
Former Justice Department official Buschbacher noted The GAO's opinion failed to even recognize Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, which allows other states to adopt California's standards.
According to Buschbacher, this makes EPA abandonment a “rule of general applicability” because it has profound implications nationwide and the standard must clearly view it as a “rule” under the CRA.
Buschbacher and Jimmy Conde, both partners at the law firm Boyden Gray, wrote a paper this month that advocated Congress to use the CRA to overturn EPA immunity.
The paper notes that the GAO is a non-elected part of the federal bureaucracy and has no authority to restrict Congress from making laws, a long-standing precedent that all actions submitted by agencies to Congress are considered rules and that EPA exemptions are affected nationwide.
Bushbach said of Gaoo's past comments: “What Gogo had said before is that even if the agency believes that this is not a rule and submits it only out of some caution, rules or actions should be proposed to Congress.
Ultimately, Bushbach said the memorandum should have little effect on Congress’ ability to pass a bill, thus overturning the California order that exempts green – “like they basically wrote an op-ed,” he said. He told Free beacon.
Reading break on free beacon
