Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 2015
Stopping Over-Criminalization Act of 2015
This bill amends the federal criminal code to establish a default mens rea (guilty mind) standard for a federal criminal offense, unless the provision of law that defines such offense specifically provides otherwise.
A federal criminal offense conviction requires proof that a defendant acted knowingly with respect to each element of the offense. If a defendant might lack reasonable awareness that conduct (e.g., a regulatory offense) is criminally punishable, then a conviction requires proof that the defendant had reason to know the conduct was unlawful.
Additionally, the bill amends the federal judicial code to: (1) require the Department of Justice to develop, publish, and update an inventory of all federal criminal offenses, including agency rules that carry criminal penalties; and (2) prohibit prosecuting a defendant for a non-inventoried federal offense.
Finally, it amends the Congressional Review Act to require congressional approval by joint resolution for a new rule with criminal penalties to take effect.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3401 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3401 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3401 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3401 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.