PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2025
Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 or the SOPRA
This bill modifies the scope of judicial review of agency actions to authorize courts reviewing agency actions to decide de novo (i.e., without giving deference to the agency's interpretation) all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of (1) constitutional and statutory provisions, and (2) rules made by agencies.
No law may exempt a civil action from the standard of review required by this bill except by specific reference to such provision.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1605 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1605 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1605 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1605 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-26 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 would require courts reviewing agency actions to decide relevant legal questions independently. This includes interpreting the Constitution, statutes, and agency rules. The requirement would apply across legally authorized court reviews of agency actions, and a law could exempt a covered civil action only by specifically referring to the amended section.
This Act may be cited as the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2025 or the SOPRA.
and decide de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency action authorized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any such civil action from the application of this section except by specific reference to this section
Section 2 would amend section 706 of title 5 of the United States Code to require “de novo” review of all relevant legal questions. This means courts would decide those questions independently, including questions about constitutional provisions, statutes, and agency rules.
Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
and decide de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies.
The proposed subsection would apply despite other laws to any judicial review of agency action authorized by law. An exemption for a covered civil action would require a law specifically referring to section 706.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency action authorized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any such civil action from the application of this section except by specific reference to this section
The supplied September 15, 2025 action snapshot records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 26, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-09-15T15:24:54Z.
2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
The supplied September 15, 2025 action snapshot records committee consideration on May 21, 2025 and a 15–12 vote ordering the bill reported with a substitute—a replacement version of the text. This records committee action, not passage by the full House.
Source snapshot updated 2025-09-15T15:24:54Z. 2025-05-21: Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12. 2025-05-21: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 15, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI