The Congressional Review Reform Act of 2025 changes two provisions of the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code). It strikes subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. §801, redesignates later subsections, and replaces the definition of "joint resolution" in 5 U.S.C. §802(a) to require that a disapproval resolution be introduced after the agency report required by §801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress.
The bill also removes a parallel subsection in §802 and redesignates others.
Why this matters: the CRA is the principal statute Congress uses to overturn federal agency rules, and its effectiveness depends on rigid timing triggers. The text here changes what counts as a qualifying joint resolution and deletes timing-related subsections without inserting a new numeric deadline in the excerpt provided—an alteration that could expand congressional flexibility to file disapproval measures or create ambiguity about the operative disapproval window.
That matters for agency planning, regulated parties that rely on final rules, and attorneys who advise on litigation strategy under the CRA.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends chapter 8 of title 5 by removing subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. §801, redesignating subsequent subsections, and rewriting 5 U.S.C. §802(a) so that a 'joint resolution' is only one introduced after the agency report required by §801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and follows a specified resolving-clause template. It also deletes a subsection in §802 and redesignates the remaining subsections.
Who It Affects
Members of Congress and their committees and staff who prepare and sponsor CRA disapproval resolutions; federal agencies that publish and report rules under the Administrative Procedure Act; regulated parties and compliance teams tracking a rule's legal finality; and litigators who litigate CRA-related timing disputes.
Why It Matters
The CRA's power to invalidate rules hinges on statutory timing triggers and exact procedural form. Rewriting the definition of qualifying joint resolutions and removing timing subsections changes how and when Congress can invoke the CRA, with downstream effects on regulatory certainty and litigation risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, this bill rewrites how the Congressional Review Act identifies a proper disapproval measure and removes two existing statutory subsections that currently constrain or define timing and form. The most concrete change is to §802(a): the bill limits the statutory definition of 'joint resolution' to only those resolutions introduced after Congress has received the agency report that §801 requires.
The bill also prescribes the resolving clause language that must appear in such a resolution, specifying the textual form Congress must use to say a rule 'shall have no force or effect.'
Separately, the bill strikes subsection (d) of §801 and one subsection of §802 and then redesignates later subsections. Those deletions alter the statutory architecture of the CRA; the text supplied does not insert a new numeric day-count or explicit replacement deadline where deleted, so the immediate, concrete statutory change is to the trigger and form of qualifying resolutions and to the removal of whatever constraints the struck subsections previously contained.In practice, the measure makes two kinds of legal changes: (1) a definitional tightening specifying that only resolutions introduced after the agency report is received will qualify, and (2) a pruning of legacy subsections that previously governed timing or related mechanics.
That combination could be read to permit more leeway in when Congress introduces a disapproval resolution (because the trigger becomes a post-receipt introduction rather than some earlier statutory clock), but it also creates an open legal question about whether and how the CRA's historical deadlines continue to apply.For compliance officers and agency counsel, the immediate takeaway is procedural uncertainty. Because the bill prescribes the exact text of qualifying disapproval resolutions, drafters of such resolutions would face a stricter formal requirement even as the statutory timetable around when those resolutions may be brought appears to shift.
Litigation over whether a particular resolution satisfies the new definition, or over the consequences of the removed subsections, is a likely next step if the text becomes law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill strikes subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. §801 and redesignates subsections (e)–(g) as (d)–(f).
It replaces 5 U.S.C. §802(a)'s definition of 'joint resolution' with language that limits qualifying resolutions to those introduced after the agency report required by §801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and requires a specific resolving-clause form.
The bill deletes a subsection of §802 (the current subsection (e) in the statutory text) and redesignates subsequent subsections accordingly.
The provided text does not insert a new numeric day-count or explicit extended deadline where the struck subsections previously sat, leaving the concrete length of any 'additional time' unspecified in this excerpt.
The prescribed resolving-clause template requires drafters to fill in the agency and rule identifiers and to use the exact phrase that the rule 'shall have no force or effect,' tightening form-based scrutiny of CRA measures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes 'Congressional Review Reform Act of 2025' as the short title. This is a standard caption that signals the bill's policy focus but has no substantive legal effect.
Remove subsection (d) and redesignate later paragraphs
The bill strikes subsection (d) of §801 and redesignates subsections (e) through (g) as (d) through (f). Mechanically, that deletes whatever rule or deadline subsection (d) contained in the current statute and shifts downstream paragraph labels. Practically, that deletion matters because it removes an existing statutory provision that contributed to the CRA's timing framework; without that text, courts and agencies will have to interpret how remaining provisions interact and whether a previously rigid clock has been relaxed or left ambiguous.
Redefine 'joint resolution' and remove a subsection
This subsection replaces §802(a) with a narrower, form-driven definition: a 'joint resolution' for CRA purposes is only a resolution introduced after Congress has received the agency report required under §801(a)(1)(A) and that contains a specific resolving clause identifying the agency and rule and stating the rule 'shall have no force or effect.' The bill also strikes one subsection of §802 and redesignates other subsections. The immediate implication is twofold: Congress must introduce qualifying disapproval measures after the agency report is received, and the resolution must follow a prescribed textual template — both of which affect how clerks, drafters, and courts will validate CRA disapproval efforts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Members of Congress seeking more time to prepare or coordinate CRA disapproval resolutions — the bill's changes to the trigger and deletions could give sponsors greater flexibility in timing and drafting.
- Political actors and advocacy groups aiming to nullify specific rules — clearer drafting requirements and a post-report introduction trigger may offer strategic advantages for coordinated disapproval campaigns.
- Congressional staff and committees responsible for drafting and vetting CRA measures — the prescribed resolving-clause template standardizes form and can reduce disputes about technical sufficiency of a resolution.
- Lawyers and drafters who specialize in form and procedure — the bill's stricter textual template creates a niche for technical expertise in preparing defensible CRA resolutions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and rule authors — the change creates legal uncertainty about the finality of rules and the timing of congressional disapproval, complicating regulatory planning and reliance interests.
- Regulated entities and compliance teams — uncertainty about whether and when a rule might be disapproved increases compliance risk and may force temporary or duplicative preparations.
- Courts and litigants — the deletion of timing subsections and the new definitional language invite litigation over statutory construction, creating additional caseload and legal expense.
- Smaller congressional offices with limited drafting capacity — the new form-based requirement for resolutions raises the bar for technical compliance and may shift workload to centralized offices or outside counsel.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: giving Congress additional procedural room to exercise oversight over agency rules versus preserving regulatory certainty and reliance interests for agencies and regulated parties. Tightening the form and changing the trigger empowers congressional disapproval efforts but, by creating statutory ambiguity and inviting technical challenges, it risks undermining the predictability that the administrative state and regulated industries depend on.
The bill's most consequential change is procedural rather than textual: it alters the trigger for qualifying CRA resolutions and deletes existing statutory subsections that currently play roles in the Act's timing regime. But the text shown does not specify a new numeric time window or a replacement timing rule in place of what was deleted.
That creates ambiguity about the precise 'additional time' the short title promises. Implementation will therefore depend heavily on how courts, legislative clerks, and parliamentary offices interpret the interplay between the remaining CRA provisions and the amended definitions.
A second implementation risk arises from the bill's emphasis on a fixed resolving-clause template. Form-based statutes are easy to enforce but prone to hyper-technical challenges: opponents can litigate on punctuation or wording, and clerks may reject measures for minor deviations.
Finally, excising statutory subsections without inserting a clear substitute can produce inevitable litigation over retroactivity, the effective start of any new clock, and the Act's relationship to Senate and House procedural rules. Those uncertainties could produce short-term instability — the very opposite of the administrative certainty agencies and regulated parties seek.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.