Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to require a six-month delay before most final agency rules may take effect. Agencies must submit finalized rules to Congress at least six months before the rule’s effective date, post rules on agency websites at least 24 hours before Federal Register publication, and publish a notice in the Federal Register on the date a rule takes effect.
Progressives stress delayed protections; conservatives stress limiting agency power.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a singular policy change—delaying the effective date of final rules to six months and altering certain procedural steps and venue for litigation—but the statutory amendments are drafted with ambiguities and gaps.
The bill amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to require a six-month delay before most final agency rules may take effect.
Agencies must submit finalized rules to Congress at least six months before the rule’s effective date, post rules on agency websites at least 24 hours before Federal Register publication, and publish a notice in the Federal Register on the date a rule takes effect.
It also extends the Congressional Review Act review period from 60 days to six months (unless Congress explicitly approves), and adds venue flexibility for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Modest chance: administratively significant but procedural; likely easier in one chamber than the other and faces institutional hurdles and stakeholder pushback.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a singular policy change—delaying the effective date of final rules to six months and altering certain procedural steps and venue for litigation—but the statutory amendments are drafted with ambiguities and gaps. The bill identifies where to amend Title 5 and specifies timelines and some publication duties, but it lacks clarity in places, omits handling of common exceptions and transitional rules, does not address fiscal or resource consequences, and provides minimal accountability mechanisms.
Progressives stress delayed protections; conservatives stress limiting agency power.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress delayed protections; conservatives stress limiting agency power.
Likely to view the bill skeptically.
It substantially delays implementation of administrative protections and strengthens Congressional control over rules, which could block or slow climate, health, labor, and civil-rights regulations.
Mixed view: appreciates increased predictability and oversight, but worries a blanket six-month delay is too blunt and could impede urgent or clearly beneficial rules.
Wants targeted fixes and exemptions.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as a check on administrative overreach, preventing last-minute 'midnight' rules and giving Congress and regulated entities more time to respond.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest chance: administratively significant but procedural; likely easier in one chamber than the other and faces institutional hurdles and stakeholder pushback.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress delayed protections; conservatives stress limiting agency power.
Modest chance: administratively significant but procedural; likely easier in one chamber than the other and faces institutional hurdles and…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a singular policy change—delaying the effective date of final rules to six months and altering certain procedural steps and venue for litigation—b…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.