PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jun 15, 2023
Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023 or 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, (2) rules made by agencies, (3) interpretative rules, (4) general statements of policy, and (5) all other agency guidance documents.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 211 (Roll no. 271).
House roll call 271 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 211 (Roll no. 271).
House roll call 271 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 220 (Roll no. 270).
House roll call 270 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2944-2945)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. R. 288, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Ms. Dean (PA) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Ms. Dean (PA) moved to recommit to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H2944)
The previous question was ordered on the amendment and the bill pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 495, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hageman amendment No. 1.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 288.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 44, H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. J. Res. 44 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640 under structured rules with one hour of general debate. Motion to recommit allowed on each measure. The resolution also provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of H. Res. 463 be considered vacated and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 495. (consideration: CR H2938-2944; text: CR H2938-2939)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 495 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 44, H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. J. Res. 44 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640 under structured rules with one hour of general debate. Motion to recommit allowed on each measure. The resolution also provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of H. Res. 463 be considered vacated and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 463 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. R. 277 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H. R. 288 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H. R. 1615 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; and H. R. 1640 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate. One motion to recommit on each measure.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 60.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-83.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-83.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 5.
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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.