Limiting Excessive Government Obstruction Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill shifts the primary forum for many agency enforcement actions from administrative adjudications to federal district courts, introducing new procedural rights and defenses for regulated parties.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally alters the process for certain federal agency adjudications. It allows a party facing an agency adjudication to file a 'demurrer,' which automatically dismisses the administrative proceeding. The agency must then initiate a new civil action in federal district court within 90 days, where the defendant is entitled to a jury trial and can assert a new defense that their alleged violation was 'reasonable under the circumstances.'
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill enhances due process protections for individuals and businesses by moving enforcement actions into the federal judiciary, where parties can benefit from jury trials and a higher standard of judicial review. They contend it curbs potential agency overreach and ensures that alleged violations are judged by a neutral, independent body, preventing government obstruction and ensuring fairness.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that this bill would severely cripple the ability of federal agencies to enforce regulations effectively, leading to regulatory paralysis and increased non-compliance. They argue it would overwhelm federal courts with new litigation, introduce unnecessary delays, and allow parties to evade accountability through broad defenses and procedural hurdles, ultimately undermining public protection and regulatory consistency.
The bill is very short and straightforward to read, making it highly accessible for anyone wishing to understand its direct provisions.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(a)
Right to Demurrer and Automatic Dismissal in Agency Adjudications
This provision allows any party against whom a federal agency has initiated an adjudication to file a 'demurrer' with the adjudicator. Upon filing, the adjudicator is required to issue a final order of dismissal with prejudice, effectively ending the administrative proceeding against that party without a substantive hearing.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision protects regulated entities from potentially burdensome or unwarranted administrative proceedings by providing an immediate avenue for judicial review, ensuring that agencies cannot pursue actions without facing scrutiny in a federal court.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision creates an automatic escape hatch for parties to avoid administrative accountability, forcing agencies into more resource-intensive and time-consuming federal court litigation, thereby delaying or preventing effective enforcement.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for administrative efficiency in enforcement against the desire for enhanced due process and judicial oversight for regulated parties. It shifts the burden and forum for initial dispute resolution.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(b)(1)
Requirement for Agencies to Commence Civil Action in District Court
After an agency adjudication is dismissed due to a demurrer, the agency has a limited window of 90 days to commence a new civil action against the party in a federal district court. This civil action must set forth the same alleged violations that were part of the dismissed agency adjudication. If the agency fails to file within this 90-day period, it loses the ability to pursue the matter.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(b)(2)
Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Actions
In any civil action commenced by an agency under this new section, the defendant (the party accused of the violation) is explicitly granted the right to a trial by jury. This is a significant change, as jury trials are not typically available in administrative adjudications.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(b)(3)
New Defense: 'Reasonable Under the Circumstances'
The bill establishes a new defense for defendants in these civil actions: that an alleged violation of an agency rule, order, or consent decree was 'reasonable under the circumstances.' This broad defense allows a defendant to argue that even if a technical violation occurred, their actions were justifiable given the specific context, potentially leading to dismissal or acquittal.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(c)
Exemptions for Specific Adjudication Areas
The bill explicitly states that its new rules regarding demurrers, civil actions, jury trials, and the 'reasonableness' defense do not apply to matters pertaining to immigration laws, national security, the Internal Revenue Code, bankruptcy, patent law, or any 'Federal benefit.' A 'Federal benefit' is broadly defined to include various forms of government assistance like retirement, welfare, health, disability, housing, education, food, and unemployment benefits.
The bill defines 'Federal benefit' broadly to include retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefits, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that limit the scope of a provision, rather than being intentionally evasive. However, its broadness significantly narrows the bill's applicability.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad definition is necessary to ensure that essential government services and safety nets are not disrupted by the new procedural requirements, allowing agencies to efficiently manage high-volume benefit adjudications.
Case against: Critics might argue that by exempting such a wide array of 'Federal benefits,' the bill leaves many vulnerable individuals without the enhanced due process protections it grants to other regulated parties, creating an inequitable two-tiered system.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly limits the scope of the bill, excluding a vast number of administrative adjudications that directly affect millions of Americans receiving federal assistance.
Agencies are given a strict 90-day period after an administrative adjudication is dismissed (due to a demurrer) to commence a civil action in district court. No such action may be commenced after the expiration of this 90-day period.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 706A(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is a standard procedural limitation, but its strictness is a deliberate choice to constrain agency action. It's not evasive but rather a precise legislative constraint.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this firm deadline ensures agencies act promptly if they wish to pursue a case, preventing them from indefinitely delaying action or using the threat of future litigation as leverage.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this short deadline places an undue burden on agencies, especially those with limited legal resources, potentially forcing them to abandon legitimate enforcement actions if they cannot prepare and file a complex civil case within 90 days.
Estimated impact: This provision could lead to a significant number of alleged violations going unaddressed if agencies cannot meet the tight deadline, effectively terminating enforcement for those cases.