Providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res 24, H.R. 1526, and H.R. 22.

Bill Number

H.Res. 287

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Congress

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-01: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.

Last Updated

2026-05-13T17:41:50Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

H. Res. 287 is a procedural resolution that establishes the rules for debating and voting on four specific legislative measures in the U.S. House of Representatives. Its main goal is to streamline the floor consideration of these items by waiving certain procedural objections and limiting debate, allowing for expedited passage without standard delays.

Key Provisions

• Section 1: Consideration of S.J. Res. 18

This joint resolution disapproves a rule from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) on "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions" (a regulation targeting overdraft fees at major banks). The resolution waives all points of order (procedural challenges), deems the resolution as read, and orders a vote on passage after one hour of debate (split equally between the majority and minority leaders of the House Financial Services Committee) and one motion to commit (send back to committee for changes).

• Section 2: Consideration of S.J. Res. 28 (noted as S.J. Res. 24 in the title, possibly a clerical error)

This joint resolution disapproves a CFPB rule on "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications" (aimed at regulating digital payment apps like Venmo or Apple Pay). Similar procedural rules apply: waivers of points of order, deemed as read, one hour of debate led by Financial Services Committee members, and one motion to commit.

• Section 3: Consideration of H.R. 1526

This bill amends Title 28 of the U.S. Code (federal court procedures) to restrict district courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions (court orders that block laws or policies across the entire country). It adopts a committee-recommended substitute amendment, waives points of order, deems the amended bill as read, allows one hour of debate led by Judiciary Committee members, and permits one motion to recommit (return to committee).

• Section 4: Consideration of H.R. 22

This bill amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., documents like a passport or birth certificate) for registering to vote in federal elections. Procedural rules mirror the others: waivers, deemed as read, one hour of debate led by House Administration Committee members, and one motion to recommit.

For all measures, the "previous question" is ordered, meaning debate ends after the specified time, and votes proceed without further amendments or delays except as noted.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This resolution itself does not directly amend laws; it is a House rule that facilitates the consideration of the four measures. If passed, those measures could lead to changes:

• S.J. Res. 18 and 28 would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn recent CFPB regulations without new legislation.
• H.R. 1526 would limit federal judges' ability to issue broad injunctions, altering how courts enforce or block executive actions.
• H.R. 22 would add a citizenship verification requirement to voter registration, changing current practices under the 1993 Act that rely on self-attestation (a sworn statement of citizenship).

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The CFPB could lose two key consumer protection rules, reducing oversight of bank overdraft practices and digital payment markets. Federal courts might face narrower authority in litigation against government policies. Election officials would need to implement new citizenship checks, potentially increasing administrative burdens at state and local levels.
• On Citizens: Consumers might see fewer protections against overdraft fees or digital payment issues. Voters could face added hurdles to registration, possibly affecting turnout among eligible citizens without easy access to proof documents. Broader judicial limits could slow or alter challenges to federal policies on issues like immigration or environment.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though changes to financial regulations could indirectly affect U.S. digital payment standards in global markets.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Financial Institutions and Tech Companies: Large banks and digital payment providers (e.g., JPMorgan Chase, PayPal) benefit from blocking CFPB rules.
• Consumers and Voters: Everyday users of banking apps and potential voters, especially those without readily available citizenship documents (e.g., low-income or elderly individuals).
• Federal Agencies: CFPB (regulatory authority diminished), federal courts (limited injunctive powers), and election boards (new verification duties).
• Congress and Political Parties: House members from Financial Services, Judiciary, and Administration Committees; partisan divides likely, with Republicans favoring deregulation and voter security, Democrats potentially opposing restrictions.
• Advocacy Groups: Consumer protection organizations (e.g., opposing rule disapprovals), voting rights groups (e.g., challenging H.R. 22), and business lobbies (e.g., supporting financial relief).

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Invokes the Congressional Review Act for quick rule reversals, which has a 60-day window post-rule issuance; could face court challenges if seen as overreach. H.R. 1526 raises separation-of-powers questions by curbing judicial authority, potentially conflicting with Article III of the Constitution (judicial independence). H.R. 22 might invite lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act if it disproportionately affects minority voters.
• Constitutional: No direct violations, but H.R. 22 touches on equal protection (14th Amendment) by adding registration barriers; injunction limits in H.R. 1526 could alter checks and balances between branches.
• Political: As a "rule" resolution, it reflects majority party (likely Republican in this 119th Congress context) control over the House agenda, enabling fast-tracking of deregulatory and election integrity priorities. Could heighten partisan tensions, especially on voting access, and signal broader efforts to counter executive branch regulations from prior administrations.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-01: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
• 2025-04-01: Submitted in House
• 2025-04-01: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res 24, H.R. 1526, and H.R. 22. — issued 2025-04-01 — PDF (4 pages)

Related Bills

• H.Res. 282 (119th Congress)
• H.Res. 294 (119th Congress)
• H.Res. 94 (119th Congress)