New Act Requires 60-Day Public Review for Agency Regulatory Settlements, Easing Reversal of Existing Decrees

This bill, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2025, sets up a whole new set of rules for federal agencies whenever they get sued over a regulation. Specifically, it targets lawsuits where someone is trying to force an agency to act—or stop delaying action—on a rule that affects other private parties or state/local governments. Think of it as putting a massive spotlight and a lot of red tape around how the government settles these regulatory disputes.

The New Rules of Engagement

If an agency gets hit with one of these "covered civil actions," the first thing it has to do is publish the complaint online within 15 days. But the real game-changer is what happens when the agency tries to settle. Under Section 3, before the agency can file a proposed settlement or consent decree with the court, it must first publish the full text and a summary statement online and in the Federal Register. Then, it has to wait 60 days to collect public comments.

This 60-day mandatory waiting period and public comment review is a huge procedural hurdle. For the public, it means more transparency—you get to see exactly what deal the agency is cutting before it’s final. But for anyone waiting on a critical safety or environmental rule that was the subject of the lawsuit, that’s two extra months, minimum, before the agency can even ask the judge to sign off. It also makes it much easier for parties who might be negatively affected by the new rule—say, a specific industry—to jump into the settlement negotiations, as the bill creates a "rebuttable presumption" that existing parties don't adequately represent them.

High-Stakes Sign-Offs

Section 3 also introduces a major check on agency power by requiring high-level sign-off for certain settlement terms. If a proposed deal does things like convert an agency’s optional authority into a mandatory duty, commit the agency to spending unappropriated funds, or interfere with its rulemaking authority, the Attorney General or the head of the agency must personally certify and sign off on the agreement. This means that significant regulatory commitments can no longer be made by lower-level agency lawyers; they become decisions that go straight to the top, adding a layer of political and administrative scrutiny that could make agencies hesitant to agree to strong regulatory terms in the first place.

The 'De Novo' Do-Over Button

Perhaps the most impactful section for long-term policy is Section 4, which deals with modifying existing consent decrees. If a federal agency decides that the terms of an existing regulatory settlement are "no longer fully in the public interest"—either because they have new legal duties or circumstances have changed—the court must conduct a “de novo” review. That's legal speak for throwing out everything that happened before and starting the review from scratch.

This provision gives agencies a powerful tool to potentially undo past regulatory settlements they don't like. For example, if a previous administration settled a lawsuit by agreeing to clean up a specific polluted site by a certain date, a future administration could argue that the cleanup schedule is no longer in the "public interest" (perhaps due to cost) and force the court to re-examine the entire agreement from square one. While the idea of adapting to changed circumstances sounds reasonable, using the subjective standard of "public interest" and demanding a full "de novo" review could undermine the stability of long-standing environmental or public safety protections established through prior court settlements.