A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security relating to "Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants".
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) process to disapprove a rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule in question would have increased the automatic extension period for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and related documentation for certain EAD renewal applicants. If Congress passes and (president signs or Congress overrides a veto) the resolution becomes law, and the DHS rule would have no force or effect. In effect, Congress would block DHS from implementing the proposed extension and keep current policy in place. The resolution was introduced in the Senate on January 30, 2025, by Senator Kennedy with Senator Scott of Florida as a co-sponsor, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill’s text identifies the specific rule (published December 13, 2024, at 89 Fed. Reg. 101208) and states Congress disapproves it, nullifying its effect.
Key Points
- 1What the bill does: It provides for congressional disapproval under the CRA of a DHS rule that would have increased the automatic extension period for EAD renewals; if enacted, the rule would have no force or effect.
- 2The target rule: DHS’s rule titled “Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants,” published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 101208).
- 3Mechanism: The joint resolution uses the CRA process to disapprove a federal rule. If approved by Congress (and subject to presidential action), the rule would be nullified and could not take effect.
- 4Current status: Introduced in the Senate on January 30, 2025, by Senator Kennedy (with Senator Scott of Florida) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No further action is indicated in the provided text.
- 5What this means for policy: DHS would not be able to implement the proposed extension increase; the existing extension policy would remain in place unless DHS proposes a different rule that goes through the CRA process again.