SJRES-182-119
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (CR S2407)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a Department of Education rule published October 31, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 48966) governing the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect, and under the CRA, the Department of Education would be prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization. The resolution was introduced in the Senate and a motion to proceed to its consideration was rejected by voice vote.
Who benefits
Federal student loan borrowers who would have benefited from the nullified rule — depending on the rule's content, this could include borrowers seeking income-driven repayment options, loan forgiveness pathways, or other borrower protections. Opponents of executive branch expansion of student loan relief who favor congressional control over such policy. Taxpayers if the rule involved federal expenditures that would now be blocked.
Who is hurt
Federal student loan borrowers who stood to benefit from the specific provisions of the nullified rule — potentially millions of borrowers depending on the rule's scope. Advocacy organizations that supported the rule's borrower protections. The Department of Education, which would lose regulatory authority in this area and be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule. Future administrations seeking to use similar regulatory approaches.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Department of Education's rule represents an overreach of executive authority, effectively creating large-scale student loan relief without explicit congressional authorization — the same type of unilateral action the Supreme Court scrutinized in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) under the major questions doctrine. They contend that decisions affecting potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in federal loan obligations must be made by elected legislators, not agency rulemakers, and that the CRA is the appropriate constitutional tool for Congress to reclaim that authority.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Department of Education acted within its statutory authority under the Higher Education Act when issuing the Direct Loan rule, and that using the CRA to nullify it would strip relief from borrowers who have already made financial decisions in reliance on the rule's provisions. They contend that permanently barring the agency from issuing any substantially similar rule — a CRA consequence — is a disproportionate response that forecloses future administrations from addressing legitimate borrower hardship through normal regulatory channels.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the major questions doctrine are most relevant here. Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), agency rules of vast economic and political significance require clear congressional authorization; courts have applied this doctrine to block student loan forgiveness rules, as seen when the Supreme Court struck down the HEROES Act-based forgiveness plan in Biden v. Nebraska (2023). The CRA itself is a constitutional exercise of Congress's oversight authority over executive rulemaking.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify the executive branch rule and bar substantially similar future rules; the check on Congress is the presidential veto, and the check on future rulemaking is that new congressional authorization would be required for a substantially similar rule.
Historical precedent
Congress used the Congressional Review Act in 2018 to nullify a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule on arbitration agreements, and the Trump administration used it extensively in 2017 to roll back 16 Obama-era regulations — establishing the CRA as a viable tool for blocking major agency rules.