The 'One Subject at a Time Act' Forces Congress to Focus: No More Hidden Policy Riders in Spending Bills

The “One Subject at a Time Act” is about making federal law less like a dumpster fire and more like a focused, well-edited document. This bill fundamentally changes how Congress writes legislation, demanding that every bill introduced—from a major infrastructure package to a simple resolution—must stick to one single topic (SEC. 2). No more stuffing unrelated provisions, or “riders,” into must-pass bills. The title also has to be crystal clear about what the law actually does. Think of it as forcing Congress to use the “one item per lane” rule at the legislative checkout.

The End of Legislative Hide-and-Seek

For anyone who has ever tried to understand a massive, thousand-page bill, this change is huge. Currently, legislators often sneak controversial or unrelated policy changes into appropriations (spending) bills, knowing those bills have to pass to keep the government running. This act explicitly bans that practice. If a spending bill includes a general rule or law change that isn't directly related to how that money is being spent, that provision is void (SEC. 2, SEC. 3). For instance, Congress couldn't use a military funding bill to also change student loan rules. This means less legislative hostage-taking and more accountability for what actually gets passed.

What Happens When They Break the Rules?

This isn't just a suggestion; the bill has teeth. If a law’s title covers two or more completely different topics, the entire law is voided (SEC. 3). If the title is fine but the text sneaks in an unrelated topic, only the unrelated parts get thrown out. This is a big deal because it gives the courts the power to enforce legislative focus. For the average person, this means that if you are negatively affected by an unrelated rule that got tucked into a bill—say, a new regulation on your small business was hidden in a highway spending bill—you can sue the government in federal court to stop its enforcement (SEC. 3).

Judicial Review Gets a Reset

Perhaps the biggest procedural shift is how these lawsuits are handled. If you sue over a law passed in violation of these rules, the judge must review the case de novo, which means they start from scratch and give no deference to Congress’s original decision (SEC. 3). This is a strong check on legislative overreach. Furthermore, the bill even allows members of Congress to sue the federal government if they feel their own chamber didn't follow these procedural rules when passing a law. While this could lead to more internal political litigation, the intent is clearly to elevate procedural integrity to a constitutional level, ensuring that the legislative process itself is held to a higher standard of transparency and focus.