[House Report 119-650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-650
=======================================================================
TO PROHIBIT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM REQUIRING TRIBUNALS IN COURT
OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO DEFER TO
THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------------
May 13, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3766]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 3766) to prohibit the District of
Columbia from requiring tribunals in court or administrative
proceedings in the District of Columbia to defer to the Mayor
of the District of Columbia's interpretation of statutes and
regulations, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 3
Legislative History.............................................. 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 3
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 5
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 5
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 5
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 5
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 5
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 6
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 6
Earmark Identification........................................... 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 6
Changes In Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Minority Views................................................... 9
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. PROHIBITING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM REQUIRING
TRIBUNALS TO DEFER TO MAYOR'S INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.
(a) Prohibition.--The District of Columbia may not require a
reviewing tribunal--
(1) in reviewing an order or decision of the Mayor of the
District of Columbia or an agency of the District of Columbia
in any court or administrative proceeding in the District of
Columbia, including judicial review proceedings, to defer to
the Mayor's or agency's interpretation of a statute or
regulation the Mayor or agency administers; or
(2) in reviewing a rule adopted by the Mayor or an agency, to
defer to the Mayor's or agency's interpretation of a statute
the Mayor or agency administers.
(b) Repeal of Legislation.--The Review of Agency Action Clarification
Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Law 26-37) is hereby repealed, and any
provision of law amended or repealed by such Act is restored or revived
as if such Act had not been enacted into law.
Summary and Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 3766 prohibits the District of Columbia (D.C.) from
requiring tribunals in D.C. judicial or administrative
proceedings to defer to the D.C. Mayor's or D.C. agencies'
interpretations of statutes and regulations they administer. By
doing so, the bill aligns the rules of statutory and regulatory
interpretation in D.C. courts with those applicable in federal
courts under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper-
Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
Background and Need for Legislation
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837
(1984), the federal courts for decades deferred to
administrative agencies' interpretations of statutes and
regulations they administer. This came to be called ``Chevron
deference'' and was in dereliction of the courts'
constitutional duty to ``say what the law is.'' Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).
In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overturned the erroneous
deference regime established under Chevron, requiring once
again that courts, not agencies, definitively interpret the law
in disputes before the federal courts. Twice since Loper
Bright, however, the D.C. Council has passed legislation
binding D.C. courts and administrative tribunals to grant
Chevron-style deference to the D.C. Mayor's and D.C. agencies'
interpretations of statutes and regulations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See D.C. Law 25-290, Review of Agency Action Clarification
Temporary Amendment Act of 2024; D.C. Law 26-37, Review of Agency
Action Clarification Amendment Act of 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council's actions have been out of step with sound
jurisprudence and policy, represent overreach by the Council
into the D.C. judicial branch, and require the D.C. courts to
put a thumb on the scale in favor of the Mayor and agencies in
litigation brought by D.C. residents and businesses. It should
not be that litigants in D.C. courts still have to confront the
injustice of Chevron deference while litigants in federal
courts nearby get the full benefit of the Supreme Court's Loper
Bright decision. H.R. 3766 is necessary to avoid injustice
against D.C. residents who judicially challenge overreaching
actions by the D.C. Mayor and D.C. agencies.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Prohibiting District of Columbia from requiring tribunals to
defer to Mayor's Interpretation of Statutes and Regulations
Subsection (a) prohibits the District of Columbia from
requiring D.C. courts and administrative tribunals reviewing
any rule, order or decision of the D.C. Mayor or any D.C.
agency to defer to the Mayor's or the agency's interpretation
of any statute or regulation the Mayor or agency administers.
Subsection (b) repeals the D.C. Council's Agency Action
Clarification Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Law 26-37) which
requires D.C. courts to defer to the Mayor's or any D.C.
agency's interpretation of any statute or regulation the Mayor
or the agency administers when reviewing any rule, order or
decision of the Mayor or the D.C. agency.
Legislative History
H.R. 3766 was introduced on June 5, 2025, by Representative
Harriet Hageman (R-WY). The following Representatives are
cosponsors of the bill: Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI). The bill was
referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Committee held a related hearing on September 18, 2025. The
Committee considered H.R. 3766 at a business meeting on
December 2, 2025, and ordered the bill as amended favorably
reported by a recorded vote.
Committee Consideration
On December 2, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 3766, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of
24-19, a quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 3766:
A roll call vote was held on favorably reporting H.R. 3766.
The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 24-19, a quorum
being present.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Explanation of Amendments
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made certain
technical changes to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
List of Related Committee Hearings
In accordance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) the
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 3766:
On September 18, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Oversight of the District of Columbia'' with the Honorable
Muriel Bowser, Mayor, District of Columbia; Mr. Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, D.C. City Council, District of Columbia; the
Honorable Brian Schwalb, Attorney General, District of
Columbia; Mr. Gregory Jackson, Jr., former Deputy Director,
White House, Office of Gun Violence Prevention and Special
Assistant to the President.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On September 18, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Oversight of the District of Columbia'' with the Honorable
Muriel Bowser, Mayor, District of Columbia; Mr. Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, D.C. City Council, District of Columbia; the
Honorable Brian Schwalb, Attorney General, District of
Columbia; Mr. Gregory Jackson, Jr., former Deputy Director,
White House, Office of Gun Violence Prevention and Special
Assistant to the President.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of
the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this bill are to ensure that D.C. courts
interpret D.C. statutes and regulations without requirements to
defer to the interpretations of the D.C. Mayor or D.C.
agencies.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Federal Advisory Committee Act STatement
Pursuant to section 5(b) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C.
1004(b)), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Committee
finds that this Committee Print does not direct the
establishment of an advisory committee.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost
estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office
Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause
3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 3766 would repeal the Review of Agency Action
Clarification Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Law 26-37), which
requires the District of Columbia courts and administrative
proceedings to defer to legal interpretations of the mayor and
city agencies in the District of Columbia. Because the bill
would affect only the District of Columbia, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 3766 would have no cost to the federal
government.
H.R. 3766 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by
prohibiting the District of Columbia from requiring city
tribunals to defer to the mayor's or a city agency's
interpretation of a statute or regulation and by repealing D.C.
Law 26-37. CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would not
exceed the annual intergovernmental threshold established in
UMRA ($103 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill would impose no private-sector mandates as defined
in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew
Pickford (for federal costs) and Andrew Laughlin (for
mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In Compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rule of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets):
REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION CLARIFICATION
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025 (D.C. LAW 26-37)
Be it enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia, [That
this act may be cited as the ``Review of Agency Action
Clarification Amendment Act of 2025''.]
[Sec. 2. Section 110 of the District of Columbia
administrative procedure act, approved October 21, 1968 (82
stat. 1209; D.C. Official Code Sec. 2-510), is amended as
follows:
[(a) Subsection (a)(1) is amended by striking the phrase ``So
far as necessary'' and inserting the phrase ``Subject to
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section and so far as
necessary'' in its place.
[(b) New subsections (c), (d), and (e) are added to read as
follows:
[``(c) In reviewing an order or decision of an agency in any
court or administrative proceeding, including proceedings under
subsection (a) of this section, the reviewing tribunal shall
defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute or
rule it administers, when the statute or rule is silent or
ambiguous with respect to a specific issue; provided, that the
interpretation is not plainly wrong or inconsistent with either
the statute's or rule's language or the legislature's or
agency's intent.
[``(d) In reviewing a rule adopted by an agency, the
reviewing tribunal shall defer to the agency's reasonable
interpretation of a statute it administers, when the statute is
silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue; provided,
that the interpretation is not plainly wrong or inconsistent
with either the statute's language or the legislature's intent.
[``(e) In determining whether an interpretation by an agency
is reasonable under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, the
reviewing tribunal may consider, among other factors:
[``(1) Whether the interpretation provided by an
agency has been consistent and longstanding;
[``(2) Whether the specific issue is within the scope
of the agency's subject matter-expertise; and
[``(3) The thoroughness and formality of the agency's
consideration.''.
[SEC. 3. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
[The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the
committee report as the fiscal impact statement required by
section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975,
approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code
Sec. 1-301.47a).
[SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
[This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor
(or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to
override the veto) and a 30-day period of congressional review
as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C.
Official Code Sec. 1-206.02(c)(1)).]
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 3766. The bill
would prohibit the District of Columbia (D.C.) from requiring a
reviewing tribunal to defer to the D.C. executive branch's
interpretation of a statute or regulation. The bill would also
repeal a D.C. law that codified the longstanding deference the
local D.C. courts had given to the D.C. executive branch's
reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or
regulation.\1\ The bill is opposed by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser,
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and D.C. Attorney General
Brian Schwalb.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Review of Agency Action Clarification Amendment Act of 2025,
D.C. Law 26-37.
\2\Letter from District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, District
of Columbia Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and District of Columbia
Attorney General Brian Schwalb to Chairman James Comer and Ranking
Member Robert Garcia, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform (Dec. 1, 2025) (online at https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/
house/118712/
documents/HMKP-119-GO00-20251202-SD017.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024, in Loper Bright, the right-wing United States
Supreme Court held that federal courts may not defer to a
federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous
statute and instead must exercise their independent
judgment.\3\ While Loper Bright is not binding on the local
D.C. courts, after Loper Bright, D.C. codified the longstanding
deference the local D.C. courts had given to the D.C. executive
branch's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would violate D.C.'s right to self-government.
Moreover, the bill would give the local D.C. courts authority
to overrule the longstanding deference they had given to the
D.C. executive branch's reasonable interpretation of an
ambiguous statute or regulation. Such a ruling would disrupt
D.C.'s legal system, substitute the judgment of the local D.C.
courts for that of expert D.C. agencies, and transfer
interpretative responsibility from D.C.'s political branches,
which are accountable to D.C. residents, to local D.C. judges,
who are appointed by the President, subject to Senate
confirmation.
Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member.
[all]