H.R. 1526 – No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; H.R. 22 – Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; S.J. Res. 18 – Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions’’.; S.J. Res. 28 – Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications’’.

2025-03-31

Loading video...

Summary

This Rules Committee hearing addressed initial subcommittee appointments before proceeding to discuss four legislative measures: the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22), the No Rogue Rulings Act (H.R. 1526), a resolution to overturn a CFPB overdraft rule (S.J. Res 18), and a resolution to overturn a CFPB digital assets rule (S.J. Res 28)[ 00:10:44-00:11:17 ]

Themes

Subcommittee Appointments

The committee began by formally appointing members to its subcommittees. Appointments were made for the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, with Ms. Fischbach as chair for Republicans and Ms. Scanlon as ranking member for Democrats. Additionally, members were appointed to the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, with Mr. Langworthy as chair for Republicans and Ms. Ledger-Fernandez as ranking member for Democrats.

Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22)

Republicans assert that the SAVE Act is essential for maintaining election integrity by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration in federal elections[ 00:11:32-00:11:36 ]

[ 00:11:53 ] . They argue that non-citizens voting undermines free and fair elections, citing instances where non-citizens have been removed from voter rolls or indicted for voting[ 00:11:43 ] [ 02:31:32-02:32:35 ] . Proponents clarify that the bill does not disenfranchise eligible citizens, including married women or military personnel, as it directs states to establish processes for name changes and explicitly does not amend military voting laws[ 02:42:30-02:42:53 ] [ 03:16:48-03:17:17 ] . They also point out that the current National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) forces states to provide voter registration forms to non-citizens who obtain driver's licenses, necessitating federal reform.

Democrats criticize the SAVE Act as a voter suppression tactic designed to create bureaucratic hurdles for eligible American citizens. They contend that the bill would disproportionately affect women who change names after marriage, rural voters, military members, seniors, and tribal members by making registration costly and difficult, especially without widespread access to passports or specific Real IDs[ 02:06:40-02:07:37 ]

[ 02:24:19-02:24:34 ] . Opponents argue there is no significant evidence of non-citizens voting, framing the bill as a solution to a non-existent problem that jeopardizes constitutional voting rights[ 02:15:50-02:15:58 ] [ 02:28:06-02:28:20 ] .

No Rogue Rulings Act (H.R. 1526)

Republicans propose limiting the authority of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, arguing that these expansive rulings exceed constitutional mandates and lead to "judicial warfare"[ 00:12:01-00:12:04 ]

. They contend that such injunctions, especially those without class action certification, inappropriately extend a single judge's authority nationwide and create systemic problems that force cases to the Supreme Court prematurely. They assert that the bill is fair and applies evenly to all administrations, reinforcing Congress's constitutional right to define judicial jurisdiction.

Democrats denounce the bill as a "blatant power grab" and an attempt to undermine the judiciary when its rulings are unfavorable to the current administration. They argue that restricting nationwide injunctions would overwhelm the judicial system with individual lawsuits, denying many citizens protection from illegal executive actions. Democrats highlight that Republicans previously benefited from nationwide injunctions and that the bill selectively includes carve-outs, suggesting political motivation rather than adherence to principle.

S.J. Res 18 (Overturn CFPB Overdraft Rule)

Republicans support overturning the CFPB rule on overdraft fees, arguing it undercuts lower-income Americans' access to liquidity by reclassifying overdraft as credit and imposing a price cap[ 00:12:14-00:12:23 ]

. They believe this rule will lead banks to reduce or eliminate overdraft services, pushing consumers toward more expensive options like payday loans and stifling competition. They assert that overdraft services are a valued, opt-in convenience that provides a crucial "liquidity bridge" for consumers.

Democrats oppose the resolution, stating that overturning the CFPB's overdraft rule would effectively increase bank fees for 23 million households. They clarify that the CFPB rule does not ban overdraft fees but sets a reasonable limit, allows flexibility for large banks to charge more with disclosure, and exempts 97% of banks and virtually all credit unions. Democrats argue that supporting the resolution prioritizes big banks over consumers, especially those living paycheck to paycheck who have historically been "screwed by big banks".

S.J. Res 28 (Overturn CFPB Digital Assets Rule)

Republicans advocate for overturning the CFPB's rule on digital asset marketplaces, characterizing it as an unjustified exercise in government control that misclassifies products and oversteps regulatory authority[ 00:12:58-00:13:20 ]

. They argue the rule's "one-size-fits-all" approach to diverse digital payment applications will stifle innovation, increase costs, and reduce functionality for consumers without clear evidence of widespread consumer harm.

Democrats oppose the resolution to overturn the digital assets rule, warning it would prevent the CFPB from supervising large tech firms offering payment apps like Apple, Google, and X. They argue the rule ensures these firms comply with existing consumer protection laws, leveling the playing field with traditional banks and protecting consumers from growing fraud and scams in payment apps. Democrats also questioned the timing, suggesting it might be influenced by a desire to enable companies like Elon Musk's X to operate without supervision.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting was marked by a highly contentious and deeply partisan tone, with frequent accusations of political maneuvering and hypocrisy from both sides[ 00:15:39-00:15:54 ]

. Democrats expressed strong opposition to the legislative measures, labeling them as voter suppression, power grabs, and detrimental to consumers, and questioned the sincerity and timing of Republican legislative efforts. Republicans staunchly defended their proposals as essential for election integrity, judicial balance, and free market principles, while accusing Democrats of misrepresenting the bills' intentions and demonstrating their own hypocrisy regarding judicial overreach and citizen voting rights[ 00:11:43-00:11:56 ] [ 02:08:50 ] . The discourse escalated at times, involving heated exchanges over alleged threats against judges and members of Congress, and the perceived politicization of the legislative process[ 00:30:25-00:30:25 ] .