S.J.Res.155 is a one‑clause joint resolution that disapproves the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s rule titled “Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption of State Laws” (90 Fed. Reg. 48710, Oct. 28, 2025) and declares that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — the Congressional Review Act (CRA) — as the statutory vehicle for nullification.
The measure matters because it would erase a recent federal-level clarification about when the FCRA preempts state law, reopening questions about whether and how state consumer-protection statutes apply to credit reporting, furnishers, and data buyers. For compliance officers, lenders, consumer-reporting agencies, and state regulators, the resolution would change the legal landscape for disputes, enforcement, and cross‑state operations in a way that invites litigation and operational fragmentation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the CFPB’s rule on preemption of state laws under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and states the rule has no force or effect. Under the CRA, that disapproval also carries constraints on the agency’s ability to reissue a substantially similar rule without new statutory authority.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are the CFPB, consumer reporting agencies, national creditors and furnishers, state attorneys general and state consumer‑protection statutes, and private plaintiffs who bring claims under state laws touching credit reporting. Entities operating across multiple states are the most exposed to compliance complexity.
Why It Matters
Nullifying the rule removes a recent federal clarification about the reach of FCRA preemption and likely reinstates pre‑rule legal uncertainty and litigation over state-law claims. The resolution would shift regulatory control back toward state lawmaking and courts, increasing compliance costs and enforcement variance for national actors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.J.Res.155 contains a single operative command: Congress disapproves the CFPB’s October 28, 2025 rule titled “Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption of State Laws” (90 Fed. Reg. 48710), and declares that rule void.
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act — chapter 8 of title 5 — which is the standard mechanism Congress uses to invalidate recently issued agency rules. The text of the resolution is short and does not include transitional language or savings clauses.
If the resolution becomes law, the rule would be treated as having no force going forward. The CRA framework also typically prevents an agency from issuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” as the disapproved rule unless Congress specifically authorizes it; that restriction means the CFPB could not simply reissue the same preemption standard in slightly altered form without further legislative or rulemaking steps.
The resolution itself does not state whether actions taken while the rule was in effect remain legally protected; that question would be resolved through litigation and agency guidance.Practically, nullifying the CFPB’s preemption rule would reinject state law claims and state enforcement actions into areas where the rule had curtailed preemption. Businesses that relied on the CFPB’s preemption analysis to avoid or limit state-law exposure would face renewed uncertainty: defendants might again be subject to state consumer-protection statutes, private suits, and state enforcement.
Conversely, state attorneys general and private plaintiffs who bring state-law claims against furnishers, data resellers, or users of consumer reports would see their avenues widened.Because the resolution provides no implementation instructions, courts and regulators will confront a transitional period. Some pending cases may proceed under the legal regime that applied when the litigation began; others could see new arguments about whether state-law claims survived or revived after the rule’s nullification.
Expect litigation over temporal effects, whether specific state laws are preempted absent the CFPB rule, and whether the CFPB may pursue materially similar regulatory guidance without new Congressional authorization.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution targets the CFPB rule published at 90 Fed. Reg. 48710 (October 28, 2025), titled “Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption of State Laws.”, It invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) to declare the CFPB rule void and states the rule “shall have no force or effect.”, Under the CRA’s constraints, a successful disapproval would generally bar the CFPB from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same as the disapproved rule without new statutory authority from Congress.
The text of S.J.Res.155 is procedural and contains no transitional or savings language addressing actions taken while the rule was in force, leaving retroactivity and ongoing enforcement unsettled.
Because the resolution withdraws the federal preemption clarification, state-law claims and enforcement actions that had been constrained by the CFPB rule will face renewed viability and litigation over preemption standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional disapproval of the CFPB preemption rule
This single operative sentence states that Congress disapproves the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule on FCRA preemption and that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” Mechanically, that language is the explicit CRA disapproval directive; it is the statutory vehicle that, if enacted, removes the rule from the body of operative federal regulations and signals the intent to nullify the agency action.
Precise citation of the targeted rule
The resolution identifies the rule by title and Federal Register citation (90 Fed. Reg. 48710, Oct. 28, 2025). That precision matters for enforcement and litigation because it ties the disapproval to a specific administrative record and prevents ambiguity about which CFPB action Congress intends to nullify.
Disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 and its downstream effects
By invoking chapter 8 of title 5, the resolution triggers the statutory consequences that accompany CRA disapprovals — most notably the standard prohibition that an agency may not reissue a rule in substantially the same form without clear statutory authorization. The resolution itself does not restate those downstream statutory mechanics, but practitioners should treat the CRA’s collateral rules as part of the resolution’s practical effect.
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
- State attorneys general and state regulators — regain a broader avenue to enforce state consumer‑protection and consumer‑reporting laws that the CFPB rule had narrowed or clarified as preempted.
- Private plaintiffs and consumer advocates — obtain expanded opportunities to bring state-law claims against furnishers, data resellers, and users of consumer reports that the preemption rule had limited.
- Consumers in states with robust consumer-protection statutes — may see stronger state-law remedies and enforcement where federal preemption had been asserted under the CFPB rule.
- Providers of state-specific compliance services and legal counsel — benefit from increased demand as businesses navigate a patchwork of revived state standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Consumer reporting agencies, national lenders, and furnishers operating across state lines — face higher compliance costs and litigation exposure from divergent state statutes and increased enforcement risk.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — loses a recent federal interpretive baseline for preemption and faces a statutory prohibition on reissuing substantially similar guidance without Congressional action.
- Multistate businesses and fintechs — will need to reallocate legal and compliance resources to manage state-by-state regulatory differences, possibly slowing product rollout.
- Federal courts and state courts — likely face increased preemption litigation as parties test the post-disapproval boundaries between state laws and the FCRA.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between restoring state control over consumer‑reporting regulation (which broadens remedies and enforcement at the state level) and preserving federal uniformity (which reduces compliance costs and legal uncertainty for national actors); eliminating the CFPB’s preemption rule resolves one set of policy complaints while creating fragmentation and litigation risk that the rule had sought to reduce.
The resolution is concise to the point of leaving critical implementation questions open. It nullifies the CFPB rule prospectively but does not include a savings clause or explicit guidance about whether conduct that relied on the rule while it was in force is shielded from enforcement or liability.
That omission creates predictable litigation over retroactivity and whether actions taken under the rule’s protections can be unwound. Courts will be asked to decide whether nullification affects pending suits, previously issued administrative determinations, or consent orders that invoked the preemption standard.
A second tension concerns uniformity versus state authority. The CFPB rule aimed to clarify when the federal FCRA supersedes state laws; removing that clarification reopens divergent state approaches and court interpretations.
That outcome advances state autonomy but imposes real costs on entities that manage national operations. Finally, the CRA bar on reissuing a substantially similar rule creates an administrative trade-off: it prevents a quick federal fix if the nullification proves disruptive, but it also forces Congress or the CFPB to consider more durable legislative or regulatory solutions — a path that can be slow and politically fraught.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.