Constitutional Authority Statements and Repeal Legislation

Constitutional Authority Statements and Repeal Legislation

August 14, 2026

To introduce a bill or joint resolution, House Rule XII requires

Members of the House to attach a statement identifying the

source of Congress’s constitutional authority to enact such

legislation, known as a Constitutional Authority Statement

(CAS). The underlying source of constitutional authority may be

clear when Congress is creating new law, but that authority is

less certain when Congress seeks to repeal a law, especially a

law that Congress determines it lacked the constitutional power

to enact in the first place. This In Focus begins with an overview

of the effect, enforceability, and implementation of the CAS

requirement. It then turns to the sources of authority Members

might cite for repealing federal laws, particularly when the

Member views that law as unconstitutional.

CAS in the Context of Repeals

CAS Overview

Members may have several options to comply with the CAS

rule when a statute’s unconstitutionality is the basis for the

repeal legislation. First, Members may cite the same authority

that Congress relied upon to pass the statute to be repealed. But

a court holding that Congress did not have authority to enact

that statute may impact Congress’s ability to use that same

authority to repeal the offending law. Second, Members could

reference the constitutional power that they believe Congress

exceeded when enacting the legislation to be repealed. If, for

instance, Congress is persuaded that an act of Congress is

beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, it could invoke that

clause in the CAS. Or, if Congress believed that a statute

impeded on powers reserved for the states under the Tenth

Amendment, a CAS could invoke that amendment.

Legal Effect, Enforcement, and Rationale

A CAS does not have direct legal effect. It accompanies a bill or

joint resolution, but it is not included in the text of the bill or

joint resolution itself. Nor does a CAS proceed through the

bicameralism or presentment processes necessary for legislation

to become law. As a result, a CAS may be reviewed by a court

as evidence of congressional intent, but it is not binding.

As a House rule, the CAS rule is enforced internally by the

House. The section-by-section analysis of the rule states that

“the Clerk must ensure that a statement required under this

paragraph accompanies the measure,” but “is not required to

evaluate the content of the statement or its adequacy,” as “those

are matters to be considered by Members during consideration

of the legislation.”

In 2011, when the current iteration of the CAS rule was

established, the House Committee on Rules explained that “a

statement outlining the power under the Constitution that

Congress has to enact a proposed bill will inform and provide

the basis for debate.” The committee added that the requirement

also serves a civic function by “demonstrat[ing] to the American

people that . . . Congress understand[s] [its] obligation under our

founding document to stay within the role established therein[.]”

House Implementation of the CAS Requirement

House Rule XII directs Members of the House to identify the

constitutional basis for the legislation with as much specificity

as is “practicable.” CRS research indicates that, consistent with

the discretion accorded by the rule, Members have invoked a

wide range of sources with varying degrees of specificity. A

CRS review of 2,047 bills and joint resolutions from the 114th

and 115th Congresses revealed that most CASs (654) made only

a general reference to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution,

which lists almost all of Congress’s enumerated powers to

legislate. The next most cited source (500 times) was the

Necessary and Proper Clause, which has been interpreted as an

extension of other enumerated congressional powers.

The Constitution does not expressly address the authority of

Congress to repeal a federal statutory provision. The Supreme

Court has long recognized, however, Congress’s authority to

repeal a federal statute. A statute repealing existing law need

only follow the same constitutional procedures as a statute that

creates new law: in I.N.S. v. Chadha, for instance, the Court

wrote that the “repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must

conform with Art[icle] I.” The reasons Congress may enact

legislation may be varied, as may be the reasons Members may

want to repeal a law, including the belief (as illustrated here and

here) that the law to be repealed is unconstitutional.

Third, Congress could cite the Necessary and Proper Clause. As

then-Professor Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a coauthored law

review article, Members of Congress take an oath to support the

Constitution that “is widely understood” to include a duty to

“observe the constitutional limits upon congressional action.”

These limits are reflected in the Vesting Clause of Article I,

which restricts “all legislative powers” to those enumerated in

the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton reasoned that “[t]his

specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretention to a

general legislative authority[.]” Members may contend that the

Necessary and Proper Clause is appropriate to use in this

context because the power to repeal unconstitutional statutes is

ancillary to the authority to pass laws and incidental to

Congress’s constitutional duty to adhere to its structural limits.

Fourth, Members could invoke Article I, Section 8. This general

reference to the enumerated powers of Congress may indicate a

Member’s recognition that the powers of Congress are largely

confined to those listed in this Section. (Other congressional

powers exist in Article IV and the Reconstruction

Amendments.)

In a review of the bills and joint resolutions originating in the

House in the 118th Congress, at least 18 bills explicitly sought

to repeal an existing federal statute (see Table 1). Among these

18 bills, Members cited Article I, Section 8, as the sole source of

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Constitutional Authority Statements and Repeal Legislation

constitutional authority 14 times. The Necessary and Proper

Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) was the next most cited

provision (3). One bill cited the Commerce Clause. These repeal

bills include legislation introduced to repeal purportedly

unconstitutional statutes. For example, one bill sought to repeal

the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 on the Member’s view

that the statute was unconstitutional at the outset because it

infringes upon the powers of the President. The CAS

accompanying that bill referenced the Necessary and Proper

Clause.

Bill

Citation

118 H.R.

2860

“To amend title XVIII of the Social

Security Act to repeal the Obamacare

ban on provider-owned hospitals.”

Arti. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

2858

“To amend the Pension Funding

Equity Act of 2004 to repeal the

antitrust exemption applicable to

graduate medical resident matching

programs.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

1489

“To amend the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal

the drug felon ban for participation in

the supplemental nutrition assistance

program under the Food and

Nutrition Act of 2008.”

Art. I, Sec. 8,

cl. 3

118 H.R.

812

“To repeal the Inflation Reduction Act

of 2022”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

720

“Repealing the Davis-Bacon law

requiring the federal government to

pay the ‘prevailing wage.’”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

450

“This legislation repeals the National

Firearms Act of 1934.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

Table 1. CASs for Bills to Repeal Federal Laws: 118th Congress

Bill

Citation

Repeal Objective from the CAS

Authority

Cited in the

CAS

118 H.R.

10454

“To repeal section 138 of the Clean

Air Act, relating to environmental and

climate justice block grants.”

Art. I, Sec. 8,

cl. 18

118 H.R.

10414

“This bill repeals the Impoundment

Control Act of 1974”

Art. I, Sec. 8,

cl. 18

118 H.R.

10251

“To repeal certain unnecessary

criminal offenses.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

8147

“To repeal the Corporate

Transparency Act”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

7728

“Repeals section 115 of the Clean Air

Act.”

Arti. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

7303

“To abolish the Board on Geographic

Names and repeal the provisions of

the Act of July 25, 1947 establishing

such Board.”

Arti. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

7288

“To repeal Freedom Support Act

section 907 waiver authority with

respect to assistance to Azerbaijan.”

Art. I, Sec. 8,

cl.

118 H.R.

6563

“Repeals the section 24220 of the

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs

Act.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

6100

“To repeal the Military Selective

Service Act.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

5037

“To amend the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993, to repeal certain

limits on leave for married individuals

employed by the same employer.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

4445

“Repeals the 1957 Authorization for

Use of Military Force.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

118 H.R.

3822

“Repeals the Essential Air Service

program.”

Art. I, Sec. 8

Repeal Objective from the CAS

Authority

Cited in the

CAS

Source: CRS. Results based search of ProQuest Congressional. Search results

should be construed as representative and not necessarily exhaustive.

Considerations for Congress

Given the lack of legal consequence and external enforceability,

some have raised doubts about the value of the CAS rule. Some

suggest that general citations (e.g., referencing all of Article I,

Section 8, or a clause) may not provide insight into the

constitutionality of legislation. In a law review article, former

Senator Russ Feingold proposed a Senate counterpart to the

House CAS rule that would, among other things, obligate a

Member introducing legislation to provide a constitutional

analysis of the legislation—not just a statement. A scholar has

argued that the CAS rule should apply at multiple stages of the

legislative process to ensure constitutional authority is

considered as legislation evolves. Congress may consider these

and other ideas should the House want to amend the CAS rule

or the Senate seek to add a similar requirement for Senators.

Congress also could continue to adopt the rule in its current

form.

Dave S. Sidhu, Legislative Attorney

Madeline W. Donley, Legislative Attorney

IF13287

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Constitutional Authority Statements and Repeal Legislation

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional

committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS

Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to

Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to

obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF13287 · VERSION 1 · NEW