Received in the Senate.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal agency rule and prevent it from taking effect. Under that process, Congress can pass a joint resolution disapproving a recently published agency rule; if the resolution becomes law, the rule is nullified and the agency is barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The Senate considers these disapproval measures under expedited procedures that limit debate.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt (89 Fed. Reg. 61029; published July 30, 2024).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Under the CRA, the Senate may consider this disapproval under expedited procedures that limit debate and allow passage with a simple majority rather than a filibuster. If the President signs the joint resolution it becomes law and the rule is nullified; a presidential veto would require congressional override.
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule that listed the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment of the longfin smelt as an endangered species (89 Fed.
Reg. 61029, July 30, 2024).
The text states the rule "shall have no force or effect." The House passed the resolution on May 1, 2025, and it was received in the Senate.
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, functional disapproval resolution that identifies the targeted rule, invokes the applicable statutory vehicle, and states the operative effect (nullification). It follows the expected form for a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution.
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
Likely strongly opposed to the resolution because it overturns an ESA listing based on federal scientific findings.
They would view the disapproval as undermining species protections and the Endangered Species Act's enforcement.
Mixed reaction: respects scientific process but worries about economic and water-management impacts.
Prefers targeted mitigation, added resources, or phased implementation over outright nullification.
Likely supportive of the resolution as a check on federal overreach and to avoid new restrictions on agriculture, water supply, and infrastructure.
Sees disapproval as protecting jobs and local control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, functional disapproval resolution that identifies the targeted rule, invokes the applicable statutory vehicle, and states the operative effect (nullific…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.