SJR145 is a joint resolution that invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that withdrew an earlier 2022 regulation titled “Fair Credit Reporting; Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports.” The resolution declares the CFPB’s withdrawal rule (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)) to have no force or effect, thereby leaving the 2022 regulatory text (87 Fed.
Reg. 41243 (July 12, 2022)) in place.
This matters to any organization that furnishes, obtains, or relies on consumer reports and to consumer advocates: a successful disapproval preserves the regulatory standards set in 2022 and invokes CRA consequences that bar the CFPB from issuing a “substantially similar” rule except through new legislation. The resolution therefore resolves a narrow legal question — whether the agency may withdraw that 2022 rule — but also creates a durable procedural constraint on future CFPB action on the same subject.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves, under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code), the CFPB’s May 12, 2025 rule that withdrew the 2022 rule on permissible purposes for furnishing, using, and obtaining consumer reports. It states that the withdrawal rule shall have no force or effect.
Who It Affects
Entities that furnish, access, or use consumer reports — including consumer reporting agencies, lenders and other data furnishers, background-screening companies, and downstream users such as employers and landlords — as well as consumer advocacy groups and the CFPB itself.
Why It Matters
Beyond restoring the 2022 regulatory text, a CRA disapproval prevents the CFPB from reissuing the same or a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization, effectively locking in the regulatory baseline until Congress or a court directs otherwise. That creates longer-term policy certainty (and constraint) for regulated actors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR145 is narrowly targeted: it does not amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act or rewrite substantive standards on permissible uses of consumer reports. Instead, it invokes the Congressional Review Act to nullify a CFPB rule that attempted to withdraw the agency’s own 2022 regulation on permissible purposes for furnishing, using, and obtaining consumer reports.
By declaring the withdrawal rule to be without force or effect, the joint resolution leaves the 2022 regulatory text in place as the governing administrative rule.
The statutory vehicle matters. Chapter 8 of title 5 allows Congress to disapprove federal agency rules via a joint resolution; when such a resolution becomes law, the disapproved rule is nullified and the agency is barred from issuing a new rule in “substantially the same form” unless Congress authorizes it by statute.
SJR145 therefore does two things at once: it undoes the withdrawal and erects a legal barrier to the CFPB simply republishing essentially the same withdrawal later.For regulated actors, the practical effect is that any compliance obligations, permissible-use definitions, and procedural requirements established by the 2022 rule remain effective unless changed by subsequent lawful rulemaking or legislation. For the CFPB, the CRA bar constrains the agency’s options for reconsidering the issue: the agency could still pursue materially different rulemaking or seek congressional action, but it cannot reissue the withdrawn rule in substantially identical form without new statutory authority.Because the joint resolution references specific Federal Register notices, it ties a congressional decision to concrete administrative actions rather than abstract policy.
That precision reduces ambiguity over which regulatory instrument is affected, but it also raises implementation questions about overlap with existing statutes and pending litigation regarding the 2022 rule’s interpretation or application.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SJR145 disapproves the CFPB’s May 12, 2025 rule (90 Fed. Reg. 20084) that withdrew the agency’s July 12, 2022 rule (87 Fed. Reg. 41243) on permissible purposes for consumer reports.
The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) and states expressly that the withdrawal rule "shall have no force or effect.", A successful CRA disapproval prevents the CFPB from issuing a new rule that is "substantially the same" as the disapproved withdrawal unless Congress enacts new legislation authorizing it.
The operative text is narrowly framed: it targets a single administrative action (the withdrawal) rather than changing the underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act or the 2022 rule’s substantive language.
Senator Ron Wyden introduced the joint resolution in the Senate as S.J. Res. 145; the text ties the congressional action directly to the two Federal Register documents that record the 2022 rule and its 2025 withdrawal.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identifies the target rule and legal basis for disapproval
The opening lines locate the resolution within the 119th Congress and state that it is enacted under chapter 8 of title 5. That citation is not cosmetic: it signals the use of the Congressional Review Act, which carries distinctive legal consequences (nullification plus a bar on reissuing substantially similar rules). The clause also cites the exact Federal Register notices so there is no ambiguity about which administrative action Congress intends to disapprove.
Disapproves the CFPB’s withdrawal rule and strips it of effect
The single operative sentence declares that Congress disapproves the CFPB’s rule that withdrew the 2022 regulation and states that the withdrawal "shall have no force or effect." Practically, that means the agency’s attempt to remove the 2022 rule is invalidated; the statute does not attempt to amend the underlying 2022 regulatory language itself, but the nullification restores the status quo ante in administrative terms.
Invokes the CRA consequence that limits future agency action
By using chapter 8, the resolution triggers the CRA’s additional consequence: the agency is precluded from reissuing the same or a substantially similar rule unless Congress provides new statutory authorization. That limitation is not spelled out in separate language in the text, but it follows automatically from the statutory vehicle cited and is a material constraint on the CFPB’s options for later rulemaking on the same subject.
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 concerned about report use: Preserving the 2022 rule maintains whatever consumer-protective definitions or procedural limits that rule imposed on furnishing, accessing, or using consumer reports, benefitting individuals whose credit and screening data are regulated under that standard.
- Consumer-advocacy organizations: They gain a regulatory posture aligned with the 2022 rule’s approach and a stronger procedural foothold to challenge future attempts to loosen permissible-use limits.
- Users and downstream parties seeking regulatory certainty on permissible purposes: Entities that base compliance programs on the 2022 rule will have regulatory continuity rather than facing uncertainty from a withdrawal.
Who Bears the Cost
- CFPB and its rulemaking flexibility: The agency loses an available administrative path to withdraw that regulation and cannot reissue a substantially similar withdrawal without Congress, constraining future policy adjustments.
- Furnishers and users of consumer reports that favored the withdrawal: Companies that supported the 2025 withdrawal may face continued compliance costs and operational limits imposed by the 2022 rule.
- Regulated intermediaries (e.g., background-screening firms and some data users): They may need to maintain or reinstate compliance programs, audits, and contract terms consistent with the 2022 rule rather than adopting practices that the 2025 withdrawal would have permitted.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is between restoring a concrete regulatory baseline that consumer advocates see as protective, and using a blunt congressional tool (the CRA) that constrains future agency discretion and can lock in a technical regulatory stance without addressing underlying statutory or policy questions; the resolution fixes one moment in the administrative record while leaving open legal, interpretive, and practical disputes about how to regulate permissible uses of consumer reports going forward.
The resolution’s clarity — it names the exact Federal Register items and relies on the CRA — is both a strength and a constraint. It produces legal certainty about which administrative action Congress is rejecting, but it does not resolve any underlying statutory interpretation disputes about the Fair Credit Reporting Act that may have motivated the 2022 rule or its withdrawal.
If courts are already adjudicating aspects of the 2022 rule’s application, a congressional disapproval under the CRA may reduce agency flexibility but will not necessarily end litigation over how the 2022 text should be read against existing statutes.
Another implementation challenge is the CRA’s ‘‘substantially the same’’ bar. That standard has generated litigation and agency uncertainty in other contexts because it requires line-drawing about how similar a future rule is to the disapproved action.
The CFPB could attempt materially different rulemaking on the same topic to evade the bar, but that invites debate over whether the differences are genuine or cosmetic, and it may shift the dispute from the policy merits to procedural dodgecraft. Finally, the resolution leaves intact the underlying statutory architecture (the FCRA and related statutory duties), so regulated parties must reconcile the 2022 rule’s requirements with existing statutory obligations and state law — a potentially messy compliance exercise.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.