Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. §702 to allow a person subject to an action before an agency hearing officer (including administrative law judges) to remove that action to a U.S. district court where the person resides or has a principal place of business. Removal is effected by filing a notice of removal in the district court in the same manner as removal from a state court under 28 U.S.C. §1446.
Progressives emphasize weakening of agency enforcement and expertise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and narrowly creates a new statutory right to remove agency hearing officer proceedings to federal district court and integrates that right by reference to the existing removal procedure in 28 U.S.C. §1446.
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. §702 to allow a person subject to an action before an agency hearing officer (including administrative law judges) to remove that action to a U.S. district court where the person resides or has a principal place of business.
Removal is effected by filing a notice of removal in the district court in the same manner as removal from a state court under 28 U.S.C. §1446.
The bill defines "agency hearing officer" to include ALJs and other agency employees authorized to hear the action.
Technically narrow but politically charged; plausible House traction yet significant Senate and stakeholder obstacles and litigation risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and narrowly creates a new statutory right to remove agency hearing officer proceedings to federal district court and integrates that right by reference to the existing removal procedure in 28 U.S.C. §1446. The bill gives a compact, direct amendment to 5 U.S.C. §702 but leaves numerous operational, fiscal, and interaction details unaddressed.
Progressives emphasize weakening of agency enforcement and expertise.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize weakening of agency enforcement and expertise.
Likely skeptical.
They would view this as a measure that weakens agency adjudication and could impede enforcement of consumer, worker, and environmental protections.
They would worry it advantages regulated entities with resources to litigate in federal court.
Mixed view.
Appreciates additional judicial review and procedural protections but worries about practical consequences like docket strain, costs, and disruption to statutory agency schemes.
Would seek clarifications and guardrails.
Generally favorable.
Views this as a restoration of constitutional protections and a check on administrative power by allowing access to Article III courts.
Sees it as limiting unelected agency adjudication.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but politically charged; plausible House traction yet significant Senate and stakeholder obstacles and litigation risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize weakening of agency enforcement and expertise.
Technically narrow but politically charged; plausible House traction yet significant Senate and stakeholder obstacles and litigation risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and narrowly creates a new statutory right to remove agency hearing officer proceedings to federal district court and integrates that right by reference to th…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.