PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 50. Record Vote Number: 272.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 27, 2023
This joint resolution nullifies the policy update issued by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) on May 5, 2022, related to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) deemed the policy update a rule on June 5, 2023, and therefore subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) requirement that a rule must be submitted to Congress and the GAO before it can take effect. The CRA also permits Congress to review and disapprove rules using specified procedures.
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the prohibition on sex discrimination in employment includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The FNS determined that the Bostock analysis also applies to certain FNS-enforced requirements under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because the requirements are sufficiently similar to those in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The FNS rule concludes that the prohibitions against sex discrimination in the FNS-enforced statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The rule also directs state agencies and program operators to handle complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation as complaints of prohibited sex discrimination.
People & committees
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 50. Record Vote Number: 272.
Senate roll call 272 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in Senate: Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 50. Record Vote Number: 272.
Senate roll call 272 · Individual votesMeasure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5210)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 229.
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.J.Res.42 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.J.Res.42 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.J.Res.42 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.J.Res.42 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.