Citizens for Constitutional v. United States, 57 F.4th 750

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) creates an expedited process for Congress to repeal recently issued agency rules (60-day window, special discharge/consideration procedures, and a 10-hour debate limit in the Senate).
The Stream Protection Rule (Office of Surface Mining) was issued Dec. 2016 and repealed under the CRA in early 2017; the repeal enabled later approval of a 950.55-acre expansion of the King II Coal Mine in Colorado.
Plaintiffs (Citizens for Constitutional Integrity and Southwest Advocates) sued, seeking declarations that the CRA and Senate Cloture Rule are unconstitutional, reinstatement of the Stream Protection Rule, vacatur of the mine permit modification, and fees; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit held it had statutory jurisdiction to hear facial constitutional challenges (5 U.S.C. §805 does not clearly bar judicial review of constitutional claims) and that Southwest Advocates’ member (Julia Dengel) has Article III standing to challenge the CRA.
The court upheld the CRA as constitutional (separation of powers, equal protection, and substantive due process challenges rejected) and held both plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Senate Cloture Rule; the district court’s dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Separation of powers (constitutionality of CRA)	CRA lets Congress extinguish agency authority by simple majorities, creating a "one-way ratchet" that erodes Executive power	CRA is ordinary legislation enacted by bicameralism and presentment; Congress may alter or reclaim delegated authority	CRA constitutional; Congress may repeal or modify agency authority by statute; CRA does not offend separation of powers
Equal protection	CRA discriminates between persons served by agency-delegated regulation and those served by direct statute (two classes)	CRA is neutral; no coherent, identifiable class is disadvantaged	Claim fails—no cognizable class or discriminatory classification alleged
Substantive due process	CRA irrationally presumes pervasive agency misconduct and is not rationally related to a legitimate purpose	CRA is rationally related to legitimate purposes (congressional oversight, control of "midnight" regs, efficient lawmaking)	Survives rational-basis review; challengers failed to negate conceivable rationales
Cloture Rule challenge / standing	Cloture Rule (60% cloture threshold) unconstitutionally affected CRA outcomes; invalidation would aid reinstatement of rules	Plaintiffs lack standing; invalidating Cloture Rule would not redress their injuries and is speculative here (Cloture not decisive in this repeal)	Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the Cloture Rule; court did not reach merits

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (unicameral legislative veto violates bicameralism and presentment)
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (line-item veto unconstitutional because it authorized unilateral repeal by the President)
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) (Congress may not reserve removal control over an officer charged with executing laws)
La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) (agencies have only the power Congress delegates)
United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) (each House may determine its rules of proceedings so long as constitutional limits are observed)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (separation-of-powers rule protecting final judgments; discussion of structural safeguards)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing doctrine: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (environmental plaintiffs have standing when they show aesthetic/recreational injury)
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (clear-statement rule: Congress must unambiguously preclude judicial review of constitutional claims)
FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review requires only a conceivable legitimate purpose for the statute)