Every term, the Supreme Court hands down decisions interpreting federal statutes and, every summer, Congress largely stays silent. A new report from Americans for Prosperity, Congress Has the Floor: Legislative Opportunities After Supreme Court Statutory Interpretations, argues that this silence is a missed opportunity.
The report makes a simple point: when the Supreme Court interprets a federal statute, its job is to say what the law is—not what it should be. If Congress disagrees with the result and wants the statute to mean something else, the Constitution provides it with the tool to do so: amend the statute. Yet this legislative response remains chronically underused.
The report traces landmark examples of this dialogue between the branches, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (in response to Employment Division v. Smith), the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (responding to FDA v. Brown & Williamson), and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (after Ledbetter v. Goodyear).
Turning to the Supreme Court’s October 2025 Term, the report flags four decisions AFP believes deserve immediate legislative attention. Those cases cover presidential tariff power under IEEPA, FCC enforcement and jury-trial rights, First Step Act compassionate release sentencing disparities, and SEC disgorgement authority. A comprehensive appendix catalogs dozens of additional statutory-interpretation rulings from the term, organized by topic area, each paired with a note on how Congress could respond.
Read the full report below
James Valvo is chief policy counsel, and Cynthia Crawford is senior policy counsel at Americans for Prosperity. They are the coauthors of Congress Has the Floor and have an essay discussing the report on SCOTUSblog.
