Understanding HR1605: Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 is a proposed law that changes how courts review decisions made by federal agencies. Right now, courts often rely on the *Chevron* doctrine, which means they usually agree with how agencies interpret laws. This bill wants to change that by requiring courts to use something called "de novo review." This means judges would look at the laws and agency rules from scratch, without giving preference to the agency's interpretation. If this bill becomes law, it would apply to all cases where someone wants a court to review an agency's decision. It would make sure that no other law can avoid this new review process unless it specifically mentions this change. This could lead to more court cases, as people and businesses might feel more confident challenging agency decisions. The bill was introduced by a congressman named Mr. Fitzgerald in early 2025. It went through a discussion and voting process in a committee, which is a group of lawmakers who review bills before they go to the whole Congress. The committee approved it by a narrow vote, which means not everyone agrees on whether this is a good idea.

This bill could have a big impact on how rules and regulations are enforced in the United States. For example, if courts no longer defer to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it might become easier to challenge rules about pollution or drug safety. This could lead to changes in how quickly new drugs are approved or how strict pollution controls are. Businesses might benefit because they could face fewer regulations if courts strike down agency rules more often. On the other hand, this could also mean that important consumer protections or workplace safety standards could be delayed or weakened if they face more legal challenges. For everyday Americans, this means that the rules governing things like healthcare, the environment, and consumer rights could change. It could lead to more court cases and potentially slower implementation of new regulations.

- Judicial Independence: Supporters argue that this bill strengthens the role of the judiciary by allowing courts to independently interpret laws, ensuring a balance of power between branches of government. - Checks on Executive Power: By reducing agency power, the bill aims to prevent executive overreach and ensure that no single branch has too much control over law interpretation. - Reduced Regulatory Burden: Businesses might face fewer compliance costs if courts are more likely to overturn agency regulations. - Clarity in Law: Proponents believe that de novo review could lead to clearer and more consistent interpretations of laws.

- Increased Litigation: Critics worry that this bill could lead to more court cases, overwhelming the judiciary and delaying important decisions. - Uncertainty for Agencies: Agencies might struggle to enforce regulations if their interpretations are frequently challenged in court. - Potential Delays: Important regulations, especially those related to health and safety, could be delayed as they face more legal scrutiny. - Risk to Consumer Protections: Opponents fear that consumer protection laws might be weakened if courts overturn agency rules more often.