The bill imposes procedural and substantive constraints on consent decrees and settlement agreements that require agencies to take regulatory action affecting third parties or governments. It requires agencies to publish complaints and proposed settlements, solicit and respond to public comment (including optional hearings), allow broader intervention, and file certified administrative records when asking courts to enter such agreements.
Beyond transparency, the bill curtails settlements that effectively convert agency discretion into nondiscretionary duties or obligate expenditures without appropriation. It requires personal certification by the Attorney General or agency head for settlements containing those kinds of terms, directs courts to scrutinize timeframes for complying with rulemaking statutes, and mandates annual reporting to Congress.
The result is a new procedural overlay intended to preserve notice-and-comment rulemaking and guard against binding settlements that circumvent statutory and budgetary processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires agencies to publish notices and proposed consent decrees or settlement agreements for at least 60 days and to accept and respond to public comments; it creates presumptions favoring intervention by affected third parties and allows amicus participation. It bars courts from approving decrees that convert discretionary regulatory authority into mandatory duties or that require unappropriated spending without an explicit AG/agency-head certification.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies sued to compel regulatory action, the Department of Justice when it signs off on settlements, regulated industries and third-party private persons whose rights would be affected by agency action, and State, local, and tribal governments that could be preempted or otherwise impacted by settlement-driven regulations.
Why It Matters
The bill seeks to prevent courts and private litigants from using consent decrees to short-circuit formal rulemaking or appropriations processes; that changes how agencies settle litigation and raises the administrative burden for entering agreements resolving regulatory disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a two-track procedural regime that begins early in litigation. When someone gives an agency notice of intent to sue or serves a complaint in litigation seeking to compel regulatory action, the agency must make that pleading publicly available online within 15 days.
If a settlement or consent decree would affect third parties or governments, the agency must not move to enter the agreement until it has completed the new publication and comment steps and any required participation windows have closed.
Before a court can approve a proposed consent decree or settlement that affects regulatory activity, the agency must publish the proposed agreement in the Federal Register and online at least 60 days in advance, explain the statutory basis for the settlement, disclose whether attorneys’ fees are part of the deal, and accept public comments. Agencies must respond to comments, certify and provide the administrative record to the court, and include hearing records if they hold public hearings.
The bill also directs settlement discussions to a neutral forum—either the court’s ADR program or a different judge—to protect the integrity of negotiations and ensure intervenors participate.Substantively, the bill draws a bright line against agreements that change an agency’s statutory discretion or that obligate spending without appropriation. Where a proposed consent decree would make a discretionary duty mandatory, require unappropriated expenditures, or otherwise grant relief a court could not itself order after judgment, the Attorney General or agency head must personally certify approval of the deal.
Courts are instructed to review timing commitments and procedural sufficiency to ensure settlements allow agencies time to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and applicable executive orders covering rulemaking.The Act also shifts litigation posture after entry. If an agency later seeks to modify a consent decree because other duties or changed circumstances justify a change, the court must review that motion and the decree de novo.
Agencies must report annually to Congress listing covered suits, decrees, statutory bases, and any fee awards, giving lawmakers visibility into how litigation is shaping regulatory outcomes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must publish a notice of intent to sue or complaint online within 15 days of service in covered civil actions.
Agencies must publish proposed covered consent decrees or settlement agreements in the Federal Register and online at least 60 days before filing them with a court and must accept and respond to public comments.
The Attorney General or the agency head must personally certify proposed agreements that convert agency discretion to mandatory duties or that commit unappropriated spending.
Courts must presume (subject to rebuttal) that would-be intervenors are not adequately represented and must allow amicus participation by anyone who submitted comments or participated in hearings.
If an agency moves to modify an entered consent decree because of competing duties or changed circumstances, the court must review the decree and motion de novo.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions for 'covered' litigation and agreements
This section defines the gatekeeping terms used throughout the bill: 'covered civil action' (suits to compel agency action affecting third parties or governments), 'covered consent decree', and 'covered settlement agreement'. The practical effect is to limit the statute's procedural requirements to settlements that produce regulatory effects beyond the immediate litigants.
Early publication and intervention presumptions
Agencies must post notices of intent to sue and complaints online within 15 days, and courts must apply a rebuttable presumption that potential intervenors’ interests are not adequately represented. For State, local, and tribal governments, courts must specifically consider statutory co-administration or preemption risks when weighing intervention, making it easier for subnational governments to enter the litigation.
Settlement process: ADR, publication, comment, and hearings
Settlement talks for covered disputes must proceed through neutral ADR or a different judge and must include intervenors. For any proposed covered settlement, agencies must publish the proposed agreement and statutory basis, take 60 days of public comment (and respond), certify and submit the administrative record to the court, and—if they held hearings—include hearing records in the court file. These mechanics import core elements of notice-and-comment into the settlement context.
Certification requirement and judicial review duties
When a proposed agreement contains terms that would convert agency discretion into nondiscretionary duties, require unappropriated spending, or otherwise exceed what a court could order, the Attorney General or agency head must personally sign and file a certification approving the agreement. Courts must then review timeframes and procedural sufficiency to ensure compliance with APA rulemaking requirements and may invite amicus participation from commenters.
Annual reporting to Congress
Agencies must file annual reports listing covered suits, the identities and texts of covered consent decrees or settlement agreements, the statutory bases for them, and any attorneys’ fee awards. That creates congressional visibility into how litigation is shaping regulatory outcomes and the use of settlements to secure regulatory change.
De novo review of modification motions and application date
Courts must review de novo any motion by an agency to modify a covered consent decree on the ground that the decree is no longer fully in the public interest because of competing duties or changed circumstances. The Act applies to covered civil actions filed and to proposed covered consent decrees or settlements presented to courts on or after enactment.
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
- State, local, and tribal governments — The bill makes it easier for these governments to intervene when settlements would preempt or otherwise affect their statutory authorities, protecting local regulatory prerogatives.
- Third-party private persons (businesses, industry associations) — A formal public-comment window and expanded intervention rights give affected downstream parties a structured opportunity to influence or oppose settlements that would change regulatory obligations.
- Public-interest and advocacy groups — The publication, comment, and amicus presumptions create additional avenues for NGOs and advocacy organizations to participate in and challenge settlements affecting broad public interests.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (including the DOJ when litigating for agencies) — Agencies will face new administrative tasks: posting documents, running comment processes, compiling certified administrative records, conducting hearings, and obtaining personal certifications from leaders.
- Department of Justice and agency heads — The AG or agency heads must personally sign certifications for certain settlements, increasing political and legal exposure and potentially slowing approvals.
- Federal courts — Judges will need to adjudicate expanded intervention and amicus petitions, scrutinize administrative records and timing commitments, and conduct de novo reviews of modification motions, increasing docket work and complexity.
- Plaintiffs who seek quick relief (private or public litigants) — The added publication, comment, and intervention steps will lengthen the time to resolve suits by settlement and may reduce the leverage of plaintiffs seeking expedited agency action.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving transparent, participatory rulemaking and maintaining an efficient mechanism for resolving disputes: the bill strengthens public oversight and limits judicially imposed regulatory mandates, but doing so risks slowing relief, increasing litigation and administrative burden, and shifting political responsibility onto agency leaders and the courts.
The bill tightens guardrails around settlements that produce regulatory outcomes, but it also raises implementation questions. The administrative-record requirement and certification rules import rulemaking-style burdens into the settlement context without fully defining how much procedural formality is necessary for different kinds of relief.
Agencies and courts will need to decide whether a short, targeted compliance commitment triggers the same record depth as a sweeping mandate, and how to treat confidential settlement negotiations when much of the surrounding documentation becomes part of the court record.
Another tension concerns timing and access. The 60-day publication period and expanded opportunity for intervention increase transparency and public participation but also create predictable delay and the potential for strategic intervention or comment campaigns.
That can protect parties who would be affected by a settlement, but it can also allow third parties to slow relief to beneficiaries of agency action. Finally, requiring the Attorney General or agency head to sign certifications puts high-level officials in the position of approving legal settlements that may require future appropriations or constrain agency discretion—raising separation-of-powers and accountability questions about who should bear political and fiscal responsibility for those commitments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.