Congress blocks HHS rule requiring agencies to follow the law
S.J.Res. 82 — A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act". · Filed by Angus King (I-ME) · 37 cosponsors · Introduced Sep 18, 2025 · Failed
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This is a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that disapproves and nullifies an HHS policy issued on March 3, 2025, titled 'Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act.' The policy would have required HHS to follow the plain text of the Administrative Procedure Act in its rulemaking. By passing this resolution, Congress would prevent that policy from taking effect, allowing HHS to continue interpreting the APA more flexibly.
Why we flagged it
The resolution uses the CRA procedural mechanism to disapprove an internal HHS policy that would have constrained the agency's interpretive discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The net effect is to remove a textual-fidelity requirement and restore agency flexibility in statutory interpretation.
What the text implies
- Disapproving a policy that mandates 'adherence to the text' of the APA signals congressional intent to permit agencies broader interpretive latitude in rulemaking, potentially weakening procedural safeguards and notice-and-comment requirements.
- The HHS policy itself was a response to executive-branch directives on statutory interpretation; disapproving it may reflect a legislative effort to constrain executive-branch textualism or to preserve agency discretion in specific policy domains.
- Once a CRA resolution passes, the underlying rule cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization, creating a procedural lock-in that may persist across administrations.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens lose a constraint on agency rulemaking discretion. The HHS policy would have required the agency to follow the plain text of the Administrative Procedure Act, a foundational statute governing how agencies make rules. Voiding that policy removes a textual anchor and allows HHS to interpret the APA more expansively, potentially reducing procedural protections and public participation opportunities in rulemaking.
Who stands to gain
- regulated industries subject to HHS rulemaking
- entities benefiting from flexible agency interpretation
Named in the bill
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Government Accountability Office, Administrative Procedure Act, Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8
Where it stands
37 cosponsors: 37 Democrats.
- Sep 18, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Sep 18, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions”
- Oct 22, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions discharged by petition pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c)”
- Dec 18, 2025 — Failed · Congress.gov: “Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 50. Record Vote Number: 654”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. Those filings disclosed $690,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 83 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Angus King, the sponsor, reported $32,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees — $690,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jan 16, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (2,377 characters) on Apr 11, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jan 16, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress blocks HHS rule requiring agencies to follow the law” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/sjres82 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.