The "One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act" mandates that each bill must cover only one topic, clearly described in its title, and restricts unrelated provisions in appropriation bills, with enforcement measures including the ability to sue the U.S. government for non-compliance.
Andy Biggs
Representative
AZ-5
The "One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act" aims to ensure legislative clarity and focus by requiring each bill to address only one subject, clearly stated in its title. It restricts appropriation bills from including unrelated general legislation or changes to existing laws, allowing only provisions that specify the use of funds. The Act allows legal challenges against the government by parties harmed by non-compliant laws and ensures judicial review.
One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act: New Law Limits Bills to Single Topics, Opens Door to Lawsuits
The "One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act" aims to clean up how Congress makes laws by requiring each bill to focus on just one clearly defined topic. This means no more sneaking unrelated provisions into must-pass legislation, especially those big spending bills. The bill's core purpose, as stated in SEC. 2, is to force bills to stick to a single, clearly stated subject, reflected accurately in the bill's title.
Straight to the Point
The main change is simple: one bill, one subject. If a bill gets passed and signed into law after this Act takes effect, and it's found to have multiple, unrelated topics crammed into its title (as per SEC. 3(a)), the whole thing gets tossed out. If parts of a bill don't match the title's stated subject (SEC. 3(b)), those parts are nullified. For appropriations bills (the ones that fund the government), anything outside the relevant subcommittee's jurisdiction (SEC. 3(c)) or any general legislation not directly related to the bill's main subject (SEC. 3(d)) is also void. Think of it like this: if a bill is about funding for highway repairs, you can't slip in a provision about farm subsidies unless it's directly tied to how that highway money is spent.
Real-World Rollout and Who Feels It
Imagine a small business owner who's been hit with new regulations that came out of nowhere, attached to a completely unrelated spending bill. Under this new law, they could potentially sue the government, arguing the regulation is invalid because it wasn't part of the bill's stated purpose (SEC. 3(e)). This Act essentially gives individuals and businesses a new legal tool to fight back against laws they believe were passed improperly. It also means that any part of a bill that is not clearly described in the title, is void. So, if there is a bill to fund a new park, but buried inside is a change to national trucking regulations, that trucking provision is toast. It empowers citizens, advocacy groups, and even businesses to challenge laws they see as overreaching or improperly passed.
The Catch? Lawsuits and Court Power
This is where things get tricky. The Act specifically allows anyone "harmed" by a non-compliant law to sue the government (SEC. 3(e)). This could lead to a lot more lawsuits challenging legislation. Also, any case brought before the court will be looked at with fresh eyes, with no deference to prior decisions. This is called the "de novo" standard of review (SEC. 3(f)). It basically means the courts get a lot of power to second-guess Congress on what counts as a "single subject." While the goal is transparency, it could also slow down the legislative process and make it harder to pass complex bills that tackle multi-faceted problems. It also raises the question of whether judges might end up having more say than elected lawmakers in deciding what a bill is really about.