This joint resolution disapproves the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s (CFPB) rule that withdrew the agency’s prior ‘‘Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening’’ regulation (89 Fed. Reg. 4171 (Jan. 23, 2024)).
The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act) to declare the withdrawal rule (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)) has "no force or effect."
Why this matters: nullifying the withdrawal effectively keeps the CFPB’s January 2024 background‑screening rule operative and erects a statutory barrier to reissuing a substantially similar withdrawal without further congressional action. That outcome preserves regulatory obligations for background‑screening firms, consumer reporting agencies, and entities that use screening (for example, employers and housing providers) while constraining the agency’s room to change course administratively.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves the CFPB’s specific rule that withdrew the agency’s 2024 background‑screening regulation and states the withdrawal "shall have no force or effect." It is framed as a Congressional Review Act disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are the CFPB (in terms of its regulatory options), consumer reporting agencies and background‑screening vendors subject to the 2024 rule, and entities that run background checks—such as employers and landlords—who must comply with the retained rule’s requirements.
Why It Matters
Disapproval under the CRA does more than strike down the withdrawal: it leaves the 2024 rule in place and prevents the agency from reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization. That creates a durable constraint on the CFPB and continuity of compliance obligations for regulated parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR 133 is narrowly focused: it targets one administrative action — the CFPB’s rule that rescinded the agency’s earlier background‑screening regulation. The joint resolution follows the Congressional Review Act (CRA) template: Congress identifies the rule being disapproved by citation and declares it to have no force or effect.
The bill text cites both the original rule (89 Fed. Reg. 4171, Jan. 23, 2024) and the withdrawal notice (90 Fed.
Reg. 20084, May 12, 2025).
If enacted, the immediate legal effect in this text is to nullify the withdrawal rule; practically, that means the original January 2024 background‑screening rule remains operative to the extent it had not already been lawfully vacated by courts or superseded by other final agency action. The resolution’s language is narrow and does not purport to amend the substantive provisions of the 2024 rule — it simply removes the agency act that attempted to withdraw it.Importantly, the CRA carries a statutory collateral consequence: when Congress disapproves a rule under the CRA, the agency generally cannot reissue the same (or a substantially similar) rule without express congressional authorization.
That consequence introduces longer‑term limits on the CFPB’s ability to revisit the withdrawal through routine rulemaking. For regulated parties, that produces regulatory stability (the retained rule stays) but also potential legal gray areas about actions taken during the interval when the withdrawal was published and about what counts as a “substantially similar” reissuance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SJR 133 specifically disapproves the CFPB’s withdrawal notice published at 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025) and declares that withdrawal "shall have no force or effect.", The joint resolution is enacted under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code), the statute that lets Congress nullify recent agency rules by joint resolution.
By targeting the withdrawal, the resolution leaves the CFPB’s original rule cited at 89 Fed. Reg. 4171 (Jan. 23, 2024) in place unless another lawful action changes it.
A CRA disapproval carries an ancillary prohibition: the agency may not reissue a rule in substantially the same form without subsequent congressional authorization.
The resolution is narrowly drafted — it affects only the listed withdrawal rule and does not directly amend the substantive provisions of the underlying 2024 background‑screening rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statement of purpose and statutory basis
The opening language identifies the resolution as one providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — i.e., it invokes the Congressional Review Act as the vehicle for nullifying an agency rule. That determines the procedural and legal framework that follows: the resolution is a joint resolution addressed to the specific administrative rule enumerated in the body.
Disapproval of the CFPB’s withdrawal rule
This clause names the exact CFPB document being disapproved (the withdrawal of the January 2024 "Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening" rule, published at 90 Fed. Reg. 20084). The practical implication is legal nullification of that withdrawal — not a rewording or amendment of the 2024 rule itself — which means the administration action that attempted to rescind the 2024 rule is treated as if it had no legal effect.
Declaration that the withdrawal 'shall have no force or effect'
The final line supplies the operative command: the specified withdrawal rule "shall have no force or effect." Under the CRA framework, that declaration also triggers the statutory bar on reissuing a substantially similar rule without congressional authorization. Practically, that restricts the CFPB’s future administrative options regarding this particular regulatory change.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- Job applicants and prospective tenants who are subject to consumer background screening — they retain whatever protections and procedural rights the CFPB’s January 2024 rule established because the withdrawal is nullified.
- Consumer advocacy and civil‑rights organizations that supported the 2024 rule — the resolution keeps the rule in force and maintains the regulatory baseline they rely on for enforcement and advocacy.
- Regulatory compliance and legal teams at larger employers and housing providers — while they may view the rule as burdensome, they gain regulatory certainty because the rule remains in place rather than oscillating between enforcement regimes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Background‑screening companies and consumer reporting agencies — they continue to comply with the 2024 rule’s requirements and face the associated operational and compliance costs that the withdrawal would have eliminated.
- Employers and landlords that use screening services — these entities must continue to follow the retained rule’s procedures (for example, notice or adverse‑action steps) and the associated administrative overhead.
- The CFPB — the agency loses flexibility to change course administratively on this matter and faces the statutory CRA restriction on reissuing a similar withdrawal absent congressional authorization, complicating policy management.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving consumer protections and ensuring regulatory stability on one hand, and preserving an agency’s ability to manage and update its rules on the other: disapproving the withdrawal secures the 2024 rule for stakeholders who rely on it, but it also locks the CFPB into that position and raises disputes about reissuance, interim actions, and administrative flexibility.
The resolution’s narrow text masks several implementation and legal wrinkles. First, nullifying a withdrawal does not rewrite the underlying 2024 rule; it leaves open questions about actions the agency or regulated parties took in the interval between the withdrawal’s publication and any congressional action.
For example, if companies altered policies, or the CFPB took enforcement or interpretive actions based on the withdrawal, parties may litigate whether those interim actions remain valid. Second, the CRA’s ban on reissuing a substantially similar rule without congressional authorization invites disagreements about what counts as "substantially similar," spawning litigation and regulatory uncertainty.
Finally, the disapproval constrains executive‑branch rulemaking in a way that can produce regulatory whipsaw: stakeholders who adapted to the withdrawal now must readjust to the retained rule, and the CFPB must choose between seeking a materially different approach or seeking legislative change. The resolution solves the immediate policy question (the withdrawal’s legal effect) but leaves unresolved operational and legal fallout from having briefly shifted regulatory footing.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.