Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn an action taken by a federal agency. It specifically targets the CFPB rule that would have withdrawn a prior agency circular. If the joint resolution becomes law, the withdrawn-by rule is treated as having no force and effect and the agency is barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new authorization from Congress.
The rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that would withdraw Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
Under the Congressional Review Act, such disapproval resolutions need simple majorities in both chambers and presentment to the President; in the Senate they are considered under expedited procedures and are not subject to a filibuster. If signed by the President the rule is nullified; a presidential veto could be overridden only by the usual two-thirds votes.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that would withdraw Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024–03, titled “Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions.” If enacted, the resolution would nullify the CFPB’s withdrawal rule (90 Fed.
Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), leaving the original circular (89 Fed.
Reg. 51955 (June 21, 2024)) in effect.
Substantively narrow and low-cost but ideologically framed; outcome hinges on congressional alignment and executive response.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the specific agency action and invokes the correct statutory vehicle. It provides the minimal, customary textual elements needed to nullify the named rule.
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection importance
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection importance
Likely to support the resolution because it prevents rollback of agency guidance addressing unlawful contract terms.
Views the circular as a consumer-protection tool and opposes undoing it by agency action.
Cautiously supportive if the circular delivers net consumer benefits without large, unexamined costs.
Wants clearer cost-benefit analysis and minimized legal uncertainty before strong endorsement.
Likely to oppose the resolution because it blocks the CFPB's action to withdraw guidance.
Views the circular as regulatory overreach that limits contractual freedom and imposes compliance costs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively narrow and low-cost but ideologically framed; outcome hinges on congressional alignment and executive response.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection importance
Substantively narrow and low-cost but ideologically framed; outcome hinges on congressional alignment and executive response.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the specific agency action and invokes the correct statutory vehicle. It provides…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.