119-SJRES-133 Journalist Public Summary
Would overturn the CFPB’s 2025 move that withdrew a 2024 background‑screening advisory; in plain terms, it aims to bring back federal guidance pushing background check companies to use stronger accuracy safeguards. (govinfo.gov)
Headline Summary
A fast‑track resolution to undo the CFPB’s 2025 withdrawal of its “Background Screening” advisory so that the 2024 guidance on more accurate background checks effectively comes back into force. (govinfo.gov)
What It Does
This Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution nullifies the CFPB’s May 12, 2025 rule that withdrew earlier guidance—including the January 23, 2024 advisory opinion on “Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening.” If enacted, the withdrawal would have no legal effect, which, as a practical matter, would restore the 2024 advisory’s interpretations (for example, discouraging duplicate or expunged records and requiring updated case outcomes in reports). (govinfo.gov)
Why It Matters
Background checks affect renters and job seekers. The 2024 advisory pressed screening companies to use “reasonable procedures” to avoid false or misleading information and outdated negatives—issues the CFPB flagged as shutting people out of housing or work. Reinstating it could reduce error‑ridden reports; blocking it keeps the CFPB’s 2025 pullback in place. (consumerfinance.gov)
Who’s For It
- Sponsor: Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D‑DE) introduced S.J.Res. 133 on March 18, 2026. (govinfo.gov)
- Democratic senators have filed companion CRA resolutions to reverse other CFPB withdrawals (e.g., on overdraft and remittances), signaling caucus support for restoring consumer‑protection guidance. (govinfo.gov)
- Consumer and tenant advocates praised the 2024 background‑screening advisory for protecting renters and workers from inaccurate reports; those groups have argued such safeguards are needed. (nclc.org)
Who’s Against It
- Financial industry and background‑screening stakeholders welcomed the 2025 withdrawal as a shift away from nonbinding guidance they viewed as de facto mandates; they argue policy should run through formal rulemaking. (bhfs.com)
- Trade groups noted the CFPB’s stated rationale for withdrawing dozens of guidance items—reducing compliance burdens and limiting guidance to what is necessary—so they may oppose reversing that decision. (govinfo.gov)
What’s Next
Status as of April 27, 2026: the Senate Banking Committee was discharged by petition under the CRA process and the measure was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar (General Orders). Next steps would be a Senate vote, House passage, and the President’s signature (or veto). CRA allows a simple‑majority, time‑limited process in the Senate. (govinfo.gov)
Discussion