Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation
Vanessa K. Burrows
Legislative Attorney
March 25, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS20846
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Summary
Executive orders and proclamations are used extensively by Presidents to achieve policy goals,
set uniform standards for managing the executive branch, or outline a policy view intended to
influence the behavior of private citizens. The Constitution does not define these presidential
instruments and does not explicitly vest the President with the authority to issue them.
Nonetheless, such orders are accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power, and, if based
on appropriate authority, they have the force and effect of law. This report discusses the nature of
executive orders and proclamations, with a focus on the scope of presidential authority to execute
such instruments and judicial and congressional responses thereto.
In the 111th Congress, several bills have been introduced regarding the revocation and
modification of executive orders: H.R. 35, H.R. 500/S. 237, H.R. 603, H.R. 1228, H.R. 3465,
H.R. 4453, and S. 2929. Other bills on executive orders proposed in this Congress are prescriptive
and contain provisions that do not necessarily revoke or require alteration of executive orders:
H.R. 21, H.R. 292, H.R. 669, H.R. 1082, H.R. 1367, H.R. 3293, S. 237, and S. 2929. In some
cases, these bills may expand upon existing executive orders.
The 111th Congress has also passed several laws with provisions related to existing executive
orders: P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); P.L. 111-8,
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009; P.L. 111-80, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; and P.L. 111-117, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. Additionally, President Obama has issued an executive
order titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Consistency with Longstanding
Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion, which was discussed during the House
floor debate on H.R. 3590/P.L. 111-148.
Congressional Research Service

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Contents
Definition and Authority ............................................................................................................. 1
Judicially Enforced Limitations................................................................................................... 3
Justice Jackson’s Concurrence............................................................................................... 3
Congressional Revocation and Alteration of Executive Orders..................................................... 4
Select Laws Concerning Executive Orders Enacted During the 111th Congress ...................... 5
Legislative Proposals in the 111th Congress ........................................................................... 6
Presidential Revocation and Alteration of Executive Orders ........................................................ 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 8
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 8

Congressional Research Service

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Definition and Authority
The Constitution does not contain any provisions that define executive orders or proclamations.
The most widely accepted description appears to be that of the House Government Operations
Committee in 1957:
Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are
founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may
have the force and effect of law.... In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations
are written documents denominated as such.... Executive orders are generally directed to, and
govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private
individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of
private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens
and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the
Constitution or by statute, the President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at
best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority. The difference between Executive
orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance.1
In addition to executive orders and proclamations, Presidents often issue “presidential
memoranda.” The distinction of these instruments from executive orders and proclamations is
likewise more a matter of form than of substance. Specifically, all three instruments can be
employed to direct and govern the actions of government officials and agencies.2 Further, if
issued under a valid claim of authority and published, all three may have the force and effect of
law, requiring courts to take judicial notice of their existence.3 Indeed, it would appear that the
only technical difference between executive orders and proclamations in relation to presidential
memoranda is that the former must be published in the Federal Register, while the latter are
published only when the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal
effect.”4
Just as there is no definition of executive orders and proclamations in the Constitution, there is,
likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance. As such, authority for the execution and
implementation of executive orders stems from implied constitutional and statutory authority. In
the constitutional context, presidential power to issue such orders has been derived from Article
II, which states that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” that
“the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” and that

1 Staff of House Comm. on Government Operations, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A
Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957) [hereinafter Orders and Proclamations].
2 For example, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) was first established by § 5 of Executive Order 13228 on
October 8, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 51812-17 (Oct. 10, 2001). Its location was not specified in that executive order. Its
organization and operation were addressed in a Homeland Security Presidential Directive on October 29, 2001, HSPD-
1. See http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1213648320189.shtm#1; CRS Report RS22840, Organizing for Homeland
Security: The Homeland Security Council Reconsidered, by Harold C. Relyea, at 2. The HSC was later established
within the Executive Office of the President in Title IX of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
3 Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871); see also Farkas v. Texas Instrument, Inc., 372 F.2d 629 (5th Cir.
1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3rd Cir. 1964); Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U.S. 546, 560-61 (1893).
4 44 U.S.C. § 1505. The Federal Register Act requires that executive orders and proclamations be published in the
Federal Register. Id. Furthermore, executive orders must comply with preparation, presentation and publication
requirements established by an executive order issued by President Kennedy. See Exec. Order No. 11030, 27 Fed. Reg.
5847 (1962).
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”5 The President’s power to
issue executive orders and proclamations may also derive from express or implied statutory
authority.6 Irrespective of the implied nature of the authority to issue executive orders and
proclamations, these instruments have been employed by every President since the inception of
the Republic.7
Despite the amorphous nature of the authority to issue executive orders, Presidents have not
hesitated to wield this power over a wide range of often controversial subjects, such as the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus;8 the establishment of internment camps during World
War II;9 and equality of treatment in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or
national origin.10 President Obama recently issued an executive order pertaining to the abortion
provisions in the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.11 This
broad usage of executive orders to effectuate policy goals has led some commentators to suggest
that many such orders constitute executive lawmaking that impacts the interests of private
citizens and encroaches upon congressional power.12 The controversial nature of many
presidential directives thus raises questions regarding whether and how executive orders may be
amended or revoked.

5 U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, 2, and 3. See Orders and Proclamations, supra note 1, at 6-12.
6 See Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
7 President George Washington’s order of June 8, 1789, asking the heads of executive departments “to submit ‘a clear
account’ of affairs connected with their [d]epartments,” is listed as the first executive order in a 1943 publication. The
NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL RECORDS SURVEY, WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION, LIST AND INDEX OF PRESIDENTIAL
EXECUTIVE ORDERS, at 1 (1943). President Washington’s first proclamations concerned A National Thanksgiving and
treaties with Indian nations. JAMES D. RICHARDSON, A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS,
1789-1897, Vol. I, at 64, 80-81 (1896).
8 See, e.g., Executive Order from President Lincoln to Major-General H.W. Halleck, Commanding in the Department
of Missouri (Dec. 1861) in JAMES D. RICHARDSON, A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS,
1789-1902, at 99 (Vol. VI)(“General: As an insurrection exists in the United States and is in arms in the State of
Missouri, you are hereby authorized and empowered to suspend the writ of habeas corpus within the limits of the
military division under your command and to exercise martial law as you find it necessary, in your discretion, to secure
the public safety and the authority of the United States.”); see also Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 115 (1866).
9 Exec. Order No. 9066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1407 (Feb. 25, 1942); see also Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
10 Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 Fed. Reg. 4313 (July 28, 1948)(“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that
there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color,
religion or national origin.”)
11 Press Release, The White House, Executive Order—Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Consistency with
Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion (Mar. 24, 2010) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst. Past Presidents have
issued memoranda on abortion, including statements on the “Mexico City Policy” announced by President Reagan in
August 1984, which concerned the Agency for International Development’s funding of nongovernmental organizations
“that engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or
lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.” Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, Pub.
Papers 10 (Jan. 22, 1993); see also Policy Statement of the United States of America at the United Nations
International Conference on Population (Second Session) Mexico, D.F., Aug. 6-13, 1984, at 4-5,
http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Global_Gag_Rule_Restrictions/MexicoCityPolicy1984.pdf;
Memorandum of March 28, 2001, Restoration of the Mexico City Policy, 66 Fed. Reg. 17303 (Mar. 29, 2001).
12 See William J. Olson and Alan Woll, Policy Analysis, Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents
Have Come to “Run the Country” by Usurping Legislative Power, Cato Institute (Oct. 28, 1999).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Judicially Enforced Limitations
The proper framework for analyzing executive orders in the judicial context may be found in
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.13 There, the Supreme Court dealt with President
Truman’s executive order directing the seizure of steel mills, which was issued in an effort to
avert the effects of a workers’ strike during the Korean War. Invalidating this action, the majority
held that under the Constitution, “the President’s power to see that laws are faithfully executed
refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”14 Specifically, Justice Black maintained that
presidential authority to issue such an executive order “must stem either from an act of Congress
or from the Constitution itself.”15 Applying this reasoning, Justice Black’s opinion for the Court
determined that as no statute or Constitutional provision authorized such presidential action, the
seizure order was in essence a legislative act. The Court further noted that Congress had rejected
seizure as a means to settle labor disputes during consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act. Given this
characterization, the Court deemed the executive order to be an unconstitutional violation of the
separation of powers doctrine, explaining “the founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking
power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.”16
While Justice Black’s majority opinion in Youngstown seems to refute the notion that the
President possesses implied constitutional powers, it is important to note that there were five
concurrences in the case, four of which maintained that implied presidential authority adheres in
certain contexts.17 Of these concurrences, Justice Jackson’s has proven to be the most influential,
even surpassing the impact of Justice Black’s majority opinion.
Justice Jackson’s Concurrence
Jackson established a tri-partite scheme for analyzing the validity of presidential actions in
relation to constitutional and congressional authority.18 Jackson’s first category focuses on
whether the President has acted according to an express or implied grant of congressional
authority. If so, according to Jackson, presidential “authority is at its maximum, for it includes all
that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate,” and such action is
“supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation.”19
Secondly, Justice Jackson maintained that, in situations where Congress has neither granted or
denied authority to the President, the President acts in reliance only “upon his own independent
powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority,
or in which its distribution is uncertain.”20 In the third and final category, Justice Jackson stated
that in instances where presidential action is “incompatible with the express or implied will of
Congress,” the power of the President is at its minimum, and any such action may be supported

13 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
14 Id. at 587.
15 Id. at 585.
16 Id. at 586-89.
17 Id. at 659 (Burton, J., concurring); id. at 661 (Clark, J., concurring in result only); id. at 610 (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring); id. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
18 343 U.S. at 635-38.
19 Id. at 635, 637.
20 Id. at 637.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

pursuant only to the President’s “own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of
Congress over the matter.”21 In such a circumstance, presidential action must rest upon an
exclusive power, and the Courts can uphold the measure “only by disabling the Congress from
acting upon the subject.”22
Applying this scheme to the case at hand, Justice Jackson determined that analysis under the first
category was inappropriate, due to the fact that President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills had
not been authorized by Congress, either implicitly or explicitly. Justice Jackson also determined
that the second category was “clearly eliminated,” in that Congress had addressed the issue of
seizure, through statutory policies conflicting with the President’s actions.23 Employing the third
category, Justice Jackson noted that President Truman’s actions could only be sustained by
determining that the seizure was “within his domain and beyond control by Congress.”24 Justice
Jackson established that such matters were not outside the scope of congressional power,
reinforcing his declaration that permitting the President to exercise such “conclusive and
preclusive” power would endanger “the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”25
These standards remain applicable in the modern era. In 1996, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia invalidated an executive order issued by President Clinton on the
grounds that it conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).26 The order at issue
prohibited federal agencies from contracting with employers that permanently replaced striking
employees. Upon determining that the order conflicted with a provision of the NLRA
guaranteeing the right to hire permanent replacements during strikes, the court of appeals held
that the statute preempted the executive order, stripping it of any effect.27
Congressional Revocation and Alteration of
Executive Orders
Further, as long as it is not constitutionally based, Congress may repeal a presidential order, or
terminate the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated. For example, in 2006,
Congress revoked part of an executive order from November 12, 1838, which reserved certain
public land for lighthouse purposes.28 Congress has also explicitly revoked executive orders in
their entirety, such as in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which revoked a December 13, 1912,
executive order that created Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2.29 Another example of the
express nullification of an executive order by Congress involved the revocation of an executive

21 343 U.S. at 637.
22 Id. at 637-38.
23 Id. at 638-39.
24 Id. at 640.
25 Id. at 638, 640-45.
26 Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (1996).
27 Id. at 1339.
28 P.L. 109-241, § 504(a); 16 U.S.C. § 668dd note. “In use from the earliest days of the Republic, the Executive Order
was at first employed mainly for the disposition of the public domain, for the withdrawal of lands for Indian, military,
naval, and lighthouse reservations or other similar public purposes.” W.P.A. HISTORICAL RECORDS SURVEY,
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS, VOL. I, LIST, at v (1944).
29 P.L. 109-58, § 334; 10 U.S.C. § 7420 note.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

order by President George H. W. Bush to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research purposes.30 To effectuate this repeal,
Congress simply directed that the “the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any
legal effect.”31 There have been numerous similarly revoked executive orders and proposals to
revoke particular executive orders.32
Additionally, Congress has used its appropriations authority to limit the effect of executive orders,
such as denying salaries and expenses for an office established in an executive order,33 as well as
denying funds to implement a particular section of a subsequently revoked executive order that
would have enabled agency heads to designate a presidential appointee to serve as the agency’s
regulatory policy officer.34 Additionally, Congress has used appropriations acts to enable a
program created by executive order to receive donations for publicity materials about the
program.35 Outside of appropriations bills, other legislative proposals have included those that
would codify existing executive orders with modifications.36
Select Laws Concerning Executive Orders Enacted During the
111th Congress
The 111th Congress has passed several laws with provisions relating to existing executive orders.
For instance, P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
transferred functions, personnel, assets, liabilities, and administrative actions that applied to the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology appointed under an executive order or
the related office to the National Coordinator appointed under that law and the applicable office.
Furthermore, appropriations acts, such as P.L. 111-8 and P.L. 111-117, contain several provisions
on funding of various executive orders, including the provisions mentioned in the previous
paragraph denying funding for sections of executive orders and enabling the receipt of donations
related to executive orders. P.L. 111-8 also contains prohibitions on the use of funds to delay
implementation of executive orders. Another appropriations act, P.L. 111-80, denies funding for
the promulgation of proposed or final rules allowing importation of Chinese poultry products, if
the rules were not issued according to the procedures for significant rules set forth in an executive
order.

30 Exec. Order No. 12806, 57 Fed. Reg. 21589 (May 21, 1992).
31 P.L. 103-43, 107 Stat. 133, § 121. Given the highly speculative basis of any asserted constitutional authority for the
President to issue such an order, there appears to be little doubt as to the legitimacy of this congressional revocation.
See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635-638.
32 See House Comm. on Rules, Subcomm. on Legislative and Budget Process, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., Hearing on the
Impact of Executive Orders on Lawmaking: Executive Lawmaking?, at 124-27 (Oct. 27, 1999); see also H.R. 5658, §
2857(b), 110th Cong (2008). This section of H.R. 5658 would have revoked Executive Order 1922 of April 24, 1914, as
amended, as it affected certain lands identified for conveyance to Utah.
33 P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 338; see P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 2008-09; see also P.L. 111-8; 123 Stat. 669.
34 Exec. Order 13422, 72 Fed. Reg. 2763, 2764 (Jan. 23, 2007) (revoked by Exec. Order 13497); P.L. 111-8, § 746; 123
Stat. 693.
35 P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 338; see P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 2008-09; see also P.L. 111-8; 123 Stat. 669.
36 H.R. 3090, § 421, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 642, 110th Cong. (2008).
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Legislative Proposals in the 111th Congress
In the 111th Congress, several bills have been introduced regarding the revocation and
modification of executive orders. For example, H.R. 35, H.R. 500/S. 237, and H.R. 1228 would
deem particular executive orders to be without force or effect; H.R. 603 would revoke part of an
executive order on certain lands identified for conveyance; H.R. 3465 would supersede an
executive order; and H.R. 4453 would require the President to revoke an executive order and
amend a separate, older executive order to restore the words removed by the executive order to be
revoked. S. 2929 would require notice of presidential revocations, modifications, waivers, or
suspensions of executive orders, or authorization of such an action, to be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days after such action is taken.
Other bills on executive orders proposed in the 111th Congress are prescriptive, and do not
necessarily require presidential modification or revocation of executive orders. For example, H.R.
21 would establish a committee in the Executive Office of the President that would succeed a
committee established by executive order. H.R. 292 would require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to ensure that that department is complying with a particular executive order. H.R. 669
would redesignate an office established by an executive order. H.R. 1082 would prohibit
importation of foreign-made American flags, regardless of whether their proportions complied
with an executive order. H.R. 1367 would expand the applicability of several executive orders to
parent companies of foreign entities that commit acts outside the United States that would violate
such executive orders if the acts were committed in the United States. H.R. 3293 would prohibit
the appropriation or availability of funds for the procurement of goods made by child labor in
certain industries and countries, in accordance with an executive order. S. 237 would provide for
the continued existence of a council despite termination of an applicable section of an executive
order.
Presidential Revocation and Alteration of
Executive Orders
Illustrating the fact that executive orders are used to further an administration’s policy goals, there
are frequent examples of situations in which a sitting President has revoked or amended orders
issued by his predecessor.37 This practice is particularly apparent where Presidents have used
these instruments to assert control over and influence the agency rulemaking process. President
Ford, for instance, issued Executive Order 11821, requiring agencies to issue inflation impact
statements for proposed regulations.38 President Carter altered this practice with Executive Order

37 For example, on February 17, 2001, in Executive Orders 13201-04, President Bush revoked a series of executive
orders issued by President Clinton regarding union dues and labor contracts, significantly altering several requirements
pertaining to government contracts. 66 Fed. Reg. 11221, 11225, 11227-28 (2001); see Exec. Order No. 12871, 58 Fed.
Reg. 52201 (1993); Exec. Order 12933, 59 Fed. Reg. 53559 (1994). President Obama revoked Executive Order 13201
in Executive Order 13496. 74 Fed. Reg. 6107 (Feb. 4, 2009). He revoked Executive Order 13202 in Executive Order
13502. 74 Fed. Reg. 6985 (Feb. 11, 2009). President Obama also revoked Executive Order 13204 in Executive Order
13495. 74 Fed. Reg. 6103 (Feb. 4, 2009).
38 3 C.F.R. 926 (1971-75).
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

12044, requiring agencies to consider the potential economic impact of certain rules and identify
potential alternatives.39
Shortly after taking office, President Reagan revoked President Carter’s order, implementing a
scheme asserting much more extensive control over the rulemaking process. Executive Order
12291 directed agencies to implement rules only if “the potential benefits to society for the
regulation outweigh the potential costs to society,” requiring agencies to prepare a cost-benefit
analysis for any proposed rule that could have a significant economic impact.40 This order was
criticized by some as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, on the grounds that it
imbued the President with the power to essentially control rulemaking authority that had been
committed to a particular agency by Congress.41 Despite these concerns, there were no court
rulings assessing the validity of President Reagan’s order. In turn, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12866, modifying the system established during the Reagan Administration.42
While retaining many of the basic features of President Reagan’s order, E.O. 12866 eased cost-
benefit analysis requirements, and recognized the primary duty of agencies to fulfill the duties
committed to them by Congress. President George W. Bush issued two executive orders
amending E.O. 12866, E.O. 13258, and E.O. 13422, both of which were revoked by President
Obama in E.O. 13497.43 President Bush’s E.O. 13258 concerned regulatory planning and review,
and it removed references in E.O. 12866 to the role of the Vice President, replacing several of
them with a reference to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the
Chief of Staff to the President.44 E.O. 13422 defined guidance documents and significant
guidance documents and applied several parts of E.O. 12866 to guidance documents, as well as
required each agency head to designate a presidential appointee to the newly created position of
regulatory policy officer.45 E.O. 13422 also made changes to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA’s) duties and authorities, including a requirement that OIRA be given
advance notice of significant guidance documents.46 President Obama’s executive order revoking
E.O. 13258 and E.O. 13422 also directed the Director of OMB and the heads of executive
departments and agencies to rescind orders, rules, guidelines, and policies that implemented those
executive orders.47


39 3 C.F.R. 152 (1978).
40 3 C.F.R. 127, 128 (1981).
41 See, e.g., Morton Rosenberg, Beyond the Limits of Executive Power: Presidential Control of Agency Rulemaking
Under Executive Order 12291, 80 MICH. L. REV. 193 (1981); Erik D. Olsen, The Quiet Shift of Power: OMB
Supervision of EPA Rulemaking Under Executive Order 12,291, 4 VA. J. NAT. RES. L. 1 (1984).
42 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (1993).
43 74 Fed. Reg. 6113 (Feb. 4, 2009)(revoking Executive Orders 13528 and 13422).
44 67 Fed. Reg. 9385 (Feb. 28, 2002)(amending Executive Order 12866).
45 72 Fed. Reg. 2763 (Jan. 23, 2007)(amending Executive Order 12866). For more information on how the now-
revoked order had impacted Executive Order 12866, see CRS Report RL33862, Changes to the OMB Regulatory
Review Process by Executive Order 13422, by Curtis W. Copeland.
46 72 Fed. Reg. 2763 (Jan. 23, 2007)(amending Executive Order 12866).
47 Id.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Executive Orders: Issuance and Revocation

Author Contact Information

Vanessa K. Burrows

Legislative Attorney
vburrows@crs.loc.gov, 7-0831


Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by T. J. Halstead, Deputy Assistant Director, American Law Division.

Congressional Research Service
8

---