Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill prohibits federal agencies from entering consent decrees that exceed the authority of the issuing court, bars settlement agreements or consent decrees from including payment of attorneys’ fees or litigation costs when they produce regulations or guidance, defines "guidance document" and "regulation," and includes a severability clause.
Progressives emphasize harms to enforcement and fee-funded private suits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear, categorical prohibitions and supplies detailed definitional material for key terms, but it provides limited procedural, enforcement, fiscal, and oversight detail necessary to operationalize those prohibitions across the federal executive branch and the courts.
The bill prohibits federal agencies from entering consent decrees that exceed the authority of the issuing court, bars settlement agreements or consent decrees from including payment of attorneys’ fees or litigation costs when they produce regulations or guidance, defines "guidance document" and "regulation," and includes a severability clause.
Contentious administrative-law reform with modest fiscal footprint; plausible in one chamber but faces significant obstacles in the other and in implementation challenges.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear, categorical prohibitions and supplies detailed definitional material for key terms, but it provides limited procedural, enforcement, fiscal, and oversight detail necessary to operationalize those prohibitions across the federal executive branch and the courts.
Progressives emphasize harms to enforcement and fee-funded private suits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harms to enforcement and fee-funded private suits
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The bill limits agencies' ability to resolve litigation through consent decrees and forbids fee awards that often support private enforcement, potentially weakening civil-rights, environmental, and consumer remedies.
Those outcomes are inferred from the text but their magnitude is uncertain.
Mixed view.
Supports the principle of preventing "regulation through litigation" and strengthening judicial review, but concerned about unintended consequences for efficient enforcement and remedies.
Would seek narrow, targeted fixes and exceptions to preserve legitimate settlements.
Generally supportive.
The bill curbs administrative overreach by stopping agencies from imposing substantive policy through settlements or guidance and eliminates incentives for litigation-driven regulation.
It aligns with priorities to constrain regulatory agencies and reinforce courts' roles.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious administrative-law reform with modest fiscal footprint; plausible in one chamber but faces significant obstacles in the other and in implementation challenges.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harms to enforcement and fee-funded private suits
Contentious administrative-law reform with modest fiscal footprint; plausible in one chamber but faces significant obstacles in the other a…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear, categorical prohibitions and supplies detailed definitional material for key terms, but it provides limited procedural, enforcement, fiscal, and ov…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.