Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for conside…
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. §610 to strengthen and specify periodic review requirements for agency rules. It requires each agency to review all existing rules within ten years of the statute's effective date and to review rules issued after enactment within ten years of publication as final rules.
Whether the mandatory judicial prohibition for failure to comply is appropriate: conservatives view it as a necessary enforcement tool; liberals see it as a route to vacate important protections; centrists want judicial discretion.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted statutory amendment that imposes defined timelines and publication obligations on agencies and adds a specific judicial enforcement consequence for noncompliance.
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. §610 to strengthen and specify periodic review requirements for agency rules.
It requires each agency to review all existing rules within ten years of the statute's effective date and to review rules issued after enactment within ten years of publication as final rules.
Agencies must also annually publish in the Federal Register a list of rules that do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and state the basis for that conclusion.
The measure is procedurally targeted and simple in form, which helps, but it contains a novel and strong judicial remedy that would invalidate rules for procedural noncompliance—this materially increases controversy and legal risk. The lack of compromise features (no phase-in or narrow pilot) and uncertain downstream fiscal/regulatory impacts reduce its chances of enactment absent substantial negotiation or amendment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted statutory amendment that imposes defined timelines and publication obligations on agencies and adds a specific judicial enforcement consequence for noncompliance. The textual amendments are reasonably specific about who must act and when, and they directly modify the relevant provisions of Title 5.
Whether the mandatory judicial prohibition for failure to comply is appropriate: conservatives view it as a necessary enforcement tool; liberals see it as a route to vacate important protections; centrists want judicial discretion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether the mandatory judicial prohibition for failure to comply is appropriate: conservatives view it as a necessary enforcement tool; liberals see it as a route to vacate important protections; centrists want judicial…
A mainstream liberal would see parts of this bill as improving transparency and accountability for regulations but would be concerned that the mandatory enforcement prohibition creates a shortcut to block public-health, safety, labor, or environmental rules if agencies miss procedural deadlines.
They would worry the statutory enforcement mechanism could be used strategically by regulated parties to delay or halt protections.
They would likely support clearer protections for substantive safeguards and for marginalized communities in the review process, and want resources to ensure agencies can comply without sacrificing substantive rule quality.
A centrist would see value in codifying periodic review and improving transparency about small-entity impacts, as these provisions can reduce regulatory clutter and support good government.
However, they would be uneasy about the mandatory judicial prohibition for any failure to comply with the review requirement, because that could produce legal uncertainty and sudden vacaturs of important rules.
They would likely seek tweaks to preserve agency flexibility, clarify compliance standards, and ensure the provision does not substitute procedural technicalities for substantive review.
A mainstream conservative would likely welcome the bill as a strong pro-regulatory-review measure that increases accountability, reduces regulatory accumulation, and protects small businesses.
The annual small-entity list and the ten-year review cycle align with deregulatory priorities.
The mandatory judicial prohibition for noncompliance would be seen as a useful enforcement mechanism to ensure agencies actually perform timely reviews rather than allowing rules to persist indefinitely without periodic justification.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
The measure is procedurally targeted and simple in form, which helps, but it contains a novel and strong judicial remedy that would invalidate rules for procedural noncompliance—this materially increases controversy and legal risk. The lack of compromise features (no phase-in or narrow pilot) and uncertain downstream fiscal/regulatory impacts reduce its chances of enactment absent substantial negotiation or amendment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether the mandatory judicial prohibition for failure to comply is appropriate: conservatives view it as a necessary enforcement tool; lib…
The measure is procedurally targeted and simple in form, which helps, but it contains a novel and strong judicial remedy that would invalid…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted statutory amendment that imposes defined timelines and publication obligations on agencies and adds a specific judicial enforcement consequence…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.