S.J.Res. 143 would use the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that withdrew a prior CFPB publication titled "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–02: Reopening Deposit Accounts That Consumers Previously Closed". The joint resolution declares the withdrawal (published at 90 Fed.
Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)) to have no force or effect, which would preserve the status of the original circular (88 Fed. Reg. 33545 (May 24, 2023)).
For compliance officers, financial institutions, and consumer advocates this is a procedural but consequential move: if enacted, the resolution would not substitute a new substantive rule, but it would remove the agency’s withdrawal and re‑expose CFPB guidance as the operative statement of agency policy — with practical consequences for bank policies, supervision, and any ongoing disputes about account reopenings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to nullify a CFPB rule that rescinded Circular 2023‑02; on enactment the withdrawal would be legally ineffective and the earlier circular would stand as the agency’s published guidance. It is a single‑clause disapproval resolution.
Who It Affects
Depository institutions (banks, credit unions), their compliance and legal teams, CFPB examiners, consumer‑facing operations, and consumers who seek to reopen accounts previously closed. Consumer advocacy groups and industry trade associations will be closely affected because the policy direction governing reopenings would revert.
Why It Matters
This is a classic use of the CRA to reverse an agency’s change in guidance without creating a new substantive rule. Beyond immediate effect on account‑reopening practices, it limits the agency’s ability to reissue a substantially similar withdrawal without new congressional authorization.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is short and strictly procedural: it states that Congress disapproves the CFPB action that withdrew Circular 2023‑02 and that that withdrawal shall have no legal effect. Under the statute cited (the CRA, chapter 8 of title 5), Congress can enact a joint resolution to overturn a rule submitted by an agency; if the resolution becomes law, the targeted agency action is nullified.
Consequence number one is restoration of the prior public record: by rendering the withdrawal ineffective, the circular as published at 88 Fed. Reg. 33545 (May 24, 2023) remains the CFPB’s published guidance on reopening deposit accounts that consumers previously closed.
That shifts the benchmark regulators and institutions use when deciding whether to reopen an account or when evaluating prior conduct under supervision or enforcement.Consequence number two flows from the CRA’s limitations: once Congress disapproves a rule, the agency generally cannot reissue a substantially similar rule unless Congress expressly authorizes it later. Practically, that constraint can lock the agency into the prior policy posture or force it to craft materially different language if it wants to revisit the subject.Operationally, institutions that changed practices after the withdrawal may face a period of uncertainty: supervisors could look to the original circular in exams or enforcement; institutions may need to reassess any operational changes made in reliance on the withdrawal; and consumers may revive complaints that were closed while the withdrawal was in effect.
The resolution itself does not create new regulatory requirements beyond restoring the prior CFPB statement of policy, but it changes the legal and supervisory context in which banks operate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
S.J.Res. 143 disapproves the CFPB rule that withdrew "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–02" and declares that withdrawal to have no force or effect.
The action targets a Federal Register notice: the original circular was published at 88 Fed. Reg. 33545 (May 24, 2023); the withdrawal was published at 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025).
The joint resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) as the statutory vehicle for disapproval.
If enacted, the CRA consequence includes a practical bar on the CFPB issuing a substantially similar withdrawal in the future unless Congress authorizes it.
The resolution is narrowly framed: it nullifies a single agency withdrawal rather than imposing new substantive duties on banks or creating a new federal rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional disapproval of CFPB withdrawal
This single operative clause states that Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that related to the withdrawal of Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023–02, and it declares that the withdrawal shall have no force or effect. Practically, the clause is concise: it identifies the agency action by reference to the Federal Register entries and pronounces judicially enforceable non‑effectiveness if the joint resolution becomes law.
Use of the Congressional Review Act
Although not spelled out at length in the text, the resolution explicitly invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — the CRA — as its legal hook. That matters because the CRA supplies the mechanism for expedited disapproval of recent agency rules and also carries downstream consequences (notably the restriction on reissuing substantially similar rules) that affect the agency’s future options.
Targeted nullification rather than new regulation
The resolution targets only the CFPB’s formal withdrawal; it does not purport to rewrite the original circular’s content or convert guidance into a binding rule. The effect is procedural: the withdrawal is voided, so the earlier CFPB circular remains the public statement of agency policy unless and until Congress or the agency takes further action consistent with the CRA’s constraints.
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
- Consumers seeking to reopen accounts — Restoring the circular reasserts the CFPB’s prior public guidance related to reopening accounts and may strengthen complaints or supervisory claims on behalf of consumers who were denied reopenings after the withdrawal.
- Consumer advocacy organizations — They gain a restored policy basis for advocacy and potential administrative complaints or litigation anchored to the original circular.
- CFPB officials and examiners favoring the 2023 circular — The resolution re‑establishes the guidance they used before the withdrawal, reducing internal policy churn for teams that favored the circular's approach.
Who Bears the Cost
- Banks and credit unions that modified account‑reopening policies after the withdrawal — They may need to reverse operational changes, update procedures and training, and face closer scrutiny in examinations or consumer complaints.
- CFPB (administration and policy teams) — The agency loses flexibility to change course on this topic and faces the administrative burden of defending or reworking policy within CRA constraints.
- Industry compliance teams and legal counsel — They inherit ambiguity and potential compliance costs as institutions reconcile practices adopted under the withdrawal with the reinstated circular and respond to supervisory inquiries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between congressional oversight and administrative flexibility: the resolution strengthens congressional control over agency policy by using the CRA to preserve prior CFPB guidance, but in doing so it constrains the agency’s ability to respond, adjust, or refine its approach to account‑reopening issues — a trade‑off between democratic accountability and regulatory agility.
The resolution is legally narrow but administratively consequential. First, there is a question about how the preceding months of agency and market behavior are treated: institutions that relied on the withdrawal may have implemented practices, closed processes, or resolved disputes under that posture — reversing course can create fairness and operational issues.
Second, the CRA’s ban on reissuing a substantially similar rule can freeze policy in place: if Congress disapproves the withdrawal, the CFPB cannot simply republish the same withdrawal language without express authorization, which limits the agency’s ability to fine‑tune guidance and may push it toward alternative, potentially more resource‑intensive approaches such as rulemaking or targeted supervision.
There are also procedural and legal wrinkles. The CRA applies only to agency actions that qualify as 'rules' and are submitted to Congress; parties have litigated the boundary between guidance and rules before.
While the resolution identifies the Federal Register entries, disputes could arise about what operationally follows from nullifying a withdrawal (for example, whether certain administrative acts taken while the withdrawal was in effect are voided or left intact). Finally, the resolution does not change the substance of the original circular — if the circular itself is subject to challenge or interpretation, those questions remain for courts and supervisors rather than being resolved by this disapproval alone.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.