PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S315-316)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 12, 2017
Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017
This bill establishes public notice and comment procedures and motion to intervene standards for civil actions seeking to compel agency action and alleging that an agency is unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying an agency action, and for consent decrees or settlement agreements that require agency action, relating to a regulatory action that would affect the rights of: (1) private persons other than the person bringing the action; or (2) a state, local, or tribal government.
The bill sets forth requirements for:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
agencies against which such an action is brought to publish online, within 15 days after receipt, the notice of intent to sue and the complaint;
courts to consider motions to intervene and allow amicus participation; and
any settlement proceedings to include intervening parties and to be conducted pursuant to the mediation or alternative dispute resolution program of the court or by a district judge.
Agencies seeking to enter such a consent decree or settlement agreement must:
publish, and accept and respond to public comment on, the proposed agreement or decree for 60 days before filing it with the court; and
make available to the court the administrative record and a summary of public comments and any public hearings.
The Department of Justice, or an agency litigating a matter independently, must certify to the court its approval of such proposed: (1) consent decrees that include terms that convert into a nondiscretionary duty a discretionary authority of an agency to propose, promulgate, revise, or amend regulations, commit an agency to expend funds that have not been appropriated and budgeted or to seek a particular appropriation or budget authorization, divest an agency of discretion committed to it by statute or the Constitution, or otherwise afford any relief that the court could not enter under its own authority; or (2) settlement agreements that include terms that provide a remedy for a failure by the agency to comply with the terms of the agreement other than the revival of the civil action resolved by the agreement, interfere with the authority of an agency to revise, amend, or issue rules, or commit the agency to expend funds that have not been appropriated and budgeted or to exercise in a particular way discretion which was committed to the agency by statute or the Constitution.
Courts: (1) shall not approve such consent decrees or settlement agreements unless they allow sufficient time and procedures to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, rulemaking statutes, and executive orders; and (2) shall grant de novo review if an agency files a motion to modify such a decree or agreement on the basis that its terms are no longer fully in the public interest due to changed facts and circumstances or the agency's obligations to fulfill other duties.
People & committees
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S315-316)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.119 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 S.119 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 S.119 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 S.119 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.