Overview
Title
To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the limitations period during which an action may be commenced for judicial review of a final rule.
ELI5 AI
The TIMER Act is a rule that says if someone wants to ask a judge to look at a new government rule, they have to do it within six years after the rule is made to keep things fair and clear for everyone.
Summary AI
H. R. 9690, also known as the “Timely Initiation to Modify Executive Rulemaking Act” or the “TIMER Act,” seeks to amend title 28 of the United States Code. It clarifies the time limit for starting a legal case to review a final rule issued by the government. Specifically, it establishes that such a case must be filed within six years from the date the rule is finalized. This bill was introduced by Ms. Crockett and others and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
House Bill 9690, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to modify title 28 of the United States Code concerning the limitations period for commencing a judicial review of a final rule issued by the government. Specifically, the bill seeks to clarify and amend the timeframe in which individuals or entities can initiate legal action against the United States government regarding a final rule. The proposed adjustment establishes a six-year statute of limitations to file such complaints, aligning actions under chapter 7 of title 5 with other legal avenues governed by section 2401 of title 28.
Significant Issues
A primary concern highlighted by this bill is the proposed six-year statute of limitations for seeking judicial review of a final rule. This extended timeframe may be regarded as excessive, potentially allowing for delays that could lead to uncertainty or lack of accountability among federal agencies. Furthermore, the bill does not clearly specify which types of rules or agencies this amendment would affect, leading to ambiguity for stakeholders attempting to navigate the judicial review process. Additionally, the legal references spanning multiple titles and chapters introduce complexity, possibly making it challenging for individuals, including legal experts, to fully grasp the bill's implications without thorough cross-referencing.
Impact on the General Public
For the general public, the six-year limit can offer a lengthy window to gather resources and build a case against a rule they perceive as unjust. However, the extended period may result in delayed resolutions to regulatory challenges, which could perpetuate uncertainty regarding the validity or enforcement of certain rules. This uncertainty might affect individuals and businesses subject to these rules, potentially impacting their decision-making and operations during the intervening period before judicial determination.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
From the perspective of government agencies, the six-year statute could introduce prolonged periods during which they must remain vigilant about potential legal challenges to their rules, potentially hindering their capacity to implement and enforce regulations effectively. On the other hand, for advocacy groups, legal experts, and affected individuals, this extended period provides ample time to consider legal action and build comprehensive cases, thus ensuring a fair opportunity to challenge regulations they believe overstep legal bounds.
Conversely, stakeholders supporting swift and decisive regulatory measures may view the lengthened timeframe as a hindrance to effective governmental oversight and enforcement. It could allow contested rules to remain in limbo, thereby undermining policy aims and reducing the impact of regulatory actions supposed to address urgent issues, including environmental protection, public health, and financial regulation. By highlighting these diverse viewpoints, the debate surrounding the bill underscores its mixed implications based on differing priorities and interests across the public and private sectors.
Issues
The six-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint for judicial review of a final rule, as described in Section 2, may be considered excessive by allowing significant delays in seeking judicial review, potentially leading to prolonged uncertainty and lack of accountability on part of the agencies.
The ambiguity in Section 2 regarding which types of rules or agencies are affected by 'judicial review of a final rule' may cause confusion and inconsistency in legal proceedings, complicating the process for stakeholders who are affected by these rules.
The necessity to cross-reference multiple titles and chapters due to the amendments proposed in Section 2 complicates the understanding of the bill, potentially causing difficulty for stakeholders, including legal professionals and the public, in fully comprehending its implications.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title for the Act, which can be called the “Timely Initiation to Modify Executive Rulemaking Act” or simply the “TIMER Act”.
2. Statute of limitations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends section 2401 of title 28 of the United States Code to update the statute of limitations for civil actions against the U.S. government. It mandates that lawsuits seeking judicial review of a final rule under chapter 7 of title 5 must be filed within six years of the rule's issuance.