2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Jan 27, 2026)

Technical corrections only. v2 adds co-sponsors, a committee report date, and a calendar number, reflecting its progression through the legislative process. There are no substantive changes to the text of the joint resolution itself.

S.J.Res. 102119th CongressIntroduced Jan 27, 2026

A joint resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025.

Reported To SenateTaxationMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action: Feb 4, 2026

Bottom line

This resolution is a Congressional veto of a District of Columbia tax law, asserting federal authority over D.C.'s self-governance.

What it actually does

This joint resolution expresses Congressional disapproval of the "D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025" (D.C. Act A26-0217), which was enacted by the District of Columbia Council. If enacted, this resolution would nullify the D.C. Council's act, preventing it from taking effect and overriding the local legislative body's decision on tax policy.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia's legislative actions, especially when those actions might conflict with federal interests or sound fiscal policy. They may contend that the D.C. tax act in question is problematic, potentially harming businesses or residents, or setting an undesirable precedent, thus warranting federal intervention to protect the broader public interest or ensure fiscal prudence.

Opponents contend

Opponents argue that this resolution undermines D.C.'s right to self-governance and local democracy, asserting that D.C. residents should have the authority to determine their own tax policies without federal interference. They contend that such Congressional disapproval is an overreach, disrespects the will of D.C. voters and their elected representatives, and treats D.C. as less than a full democracy.

The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for quick review.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (D.C. Act A26-0217), enacted by the District of Columbia Council on December 20, 2025, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act on December 30, 2025.

Disapproval of D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision explicitly states that the U.S. Congress rejects and nullifies the "D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025," which was passed by the District of Columbia Council. By disapproving this act, the resolution prevents the D.C. tax law from taking effect, effectively overriding the local legislative body's decision and maintaining the existing tax structure.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupDistrict of Columbia Council and GovernmentImpactLoss of legislative authority; inability to implement locally passed tax law.MechanismCongressional disapproval under the Home Rule Act.ScaleDirect nullification of a specific D.C. law.

GroupResidents and Businesses of the District of ColumbiaImpactThe D.C. tax law will not take effect, meaning their income and franchise tax obligations will not change as per the D.C. Council's act.MechanismFederal intervention preventing local law implementation.ScaleDirect impact on tax structure and potential financial obligations.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this disapproval is a necessary exercise of Congressional oversight to ensure that D.C.'s laws align with federal interests or sound economic principles, especially concerning tax policy that could affect the federal capital. They might contend that the D.C. Act itself was flawed or detrimental.

Critics contend

Opponents argue that this provision is an affront to D.C. self-governance, overriding the democratic will of D.C. residents and their elected officials on a purely local matter. They assert that D.C. should have full autonomy over its tax laws.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is between Congressional authority over the District of Columbia, as outlined in the Constitution and the Home Rule Act, and the principle of local self-determination for D.C. residents. It balances federal oversight with local democratic rights.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.