Federal Agency Compliance Act - Requires a Federal agency, in administering a statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy (statute) within a judicial circuit, to adhere to the existing precedent respecting the interpretation and application of such statute, as established by the decisions of the United States court of appeals for that circuit, with exceptions. Allows an agency to take a position, either in administration or litigation, that is at variance with such precedent if: (1) it is uncertain whether the administration of the statute will be subject to review by the appeals court that established that precedent or a court of appeals for another circuit; (2) the Government did not seek further review of the case in which that precedent was first established in that appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court because neither the United States nor any agency or officer thereof was a party to the case or because the decision establishing that precedent was otherwise substantially favorable to the Government; or (3) it is reasonable to question the continued validity of that precedent in light of a subsequent decision of that appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, a subsequent change in any pertinent statute or regulation, or any other subsequent change in the public policy or circumstances on which that precedent was based. Requires: (1) the officers of any Federal agency supervising the conduct of litigation to ensure that the initiation, defense, and continuation of proceedings in the U.S. courts within, or subject to the jurisdiction of, a particular judicial circuit avoids unnecessarily repetitive litigation on questions of law already consistently resolved against the U.S. position in precedents established by the U.S. courts of appeals for three or more other judicial circuits; and (2) decisions on whether to initiate, defend, or continue litigation to take into account specified factors, including the effect of intervening changes in pertinent law or the public policy or circumstances on which the established precedents were based. Requires the Attorney General to report annually to specified congressional committees on Federal agency efforts to comply with this Act. Specifies that a decision on whether to initiate, defend, or continue litigation is not subject to court review on the grounds that the decision violates the requirement under this Act regarding adherence to court of appeals precedents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1166 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 S.1166 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 S.1166 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 S.1166 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.