H.R.849 - No Regulation Through Litigation Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.849, the "No Regulation Through Litigation Act of 2025," aims to limit the power of federal agencies in settlement agreements and consent decrees. It restricts agencies from entering into consent decrees that exceed a court's authority and prohibits the payment of attorneys' fees or litigation costs in settlements that lead to new regulations or guidance documents. The bill defines 'guidance document' and 'regulation' to clarify the scope of these limitations.
This legislation seeks to curb what some perceive as regulatory overreach by federal agencies through litigation settlements. It intends to ensure that regulations are created through the established rulemaking process, rather than through consent decrees or settlement agreements.
The bill includes a severability clause, ensuring that if any part of the Act is deemed invalid, the remaining provisions will still be enforced.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to limit the ability of federal agencies to use settlement agreements and consent decrees to establish new regulations or guidance. This could lead to fewer regulations being implemented through litigation settlements.
It could also reduce the financial incentives for parties to sue federal agencies, as the recovery of attorneys' fees and litigation costs would be prohibited in certain cases. This may result in fewer lawsuits against federal agencies related to regulatory matters.
Ultimately, the bill could shift the regulatory landscape, requiring agencies to rely more on formal rulemaking processes under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Potential Benefits
- Could reduce the potential for regulatory overreach by federal agencies.
- May lead to more transparent and accountable rulemaking processes.
- Could decrease the number of lawsuits against federal agencies related to regulatory matters.
- Could save taxpayer money by limiting the payment of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in settlement agreements.
- May encourage agencies to rely on established rulemaking procedures, promoting public participation and transparency.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could hinder the ability of federal agencies to address urgent issues through settlement agreements.
- May increase the workload and resources required for formal rulemaking processes.
- Could limit the ability of individuals and organizations to seek redress against federal agencies for regulatory violations.
- May lead to delays in implementing necessary regulations.
- Could potentially weaken environmental, health, and safety protections if agencies are unable to use settlements to enforce existing laws.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the US Constitution is complex. On one hand, it could be argued that limiting the power of federal agencies aligns with the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that regulatory authority is properly vested in the legislative and executive branches. Article I, Section 1, vests all legislative powers in Congress.
On the other hand, some may argue that the bill infringes upon the executive branch's authority to enforce laws and settle disputes. The Constitution does not explicitly address settlement agreements or consent decrees, leaving room for interpretation.
Ultimately, the constitutionality of the bill would likely depend on judicial interpretation and whether it is deemed to unduly restrict the executive branch's ability to carry out its duties.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).