House bill aims to block state AI regulation for a decade
House Energy & Commerce reconciliation bill seeks a 10-year moratorium on new state-level AI legislation
Late Sunday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a bill that seeks to block states from passing regulation on AI “models, systems, or automated decision systems” for 10 years.
First reported by 404 Media, the bill contains is a provision mandating that…
…no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 11 of this Act.
There are exceptions provided for laws and regulations that aim to “remove legal impediments” or “facilitate the deployment or operation” of AI systems, and those aimed at “[streamlining] licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures.”
Essentially, all state laws on AI systems would be banned other than those which explicitly make it easier to develop and deploy AI.
There has been a flurry of state-level legislative activity over the past year, with nearly 700 bills related to AI considered in 2024, according to Business Software Intelligence.
Of these, around 16% (113) were enacted into law, considerably higher than the 1-3% of bills that end up as enacted legislation in any given Congress.
How would it work?
Automatic displacement under the Supremacy Clause. Because the bill expressly pre‑empts state law, any conflicting state AI rule becomes void and unenforceable the moment the federal law takes effect. States need not (and constitutionally cannot be required to) repeal their statutes; they simply cannot apply them.
Enforcement would follow ordinary federal‑pre‑emption practice:
Defensive use: A company or individual targeted under a state AI rule could raise the moratorium as an absolute defense in state or federal court.
Offensive use: Regulated parties could seek declaratory or injunctive relief against state officials under Ex parte Young or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to block threatened enforcement.
The moratorium would be self‑executing—states could still leave their AI statutes on the books, but any attempt to apply them would quickly end up in federal court.
Is it constitutional?
This likely turns on whether courts see the text as a legitimate “rule of decision” that preempts state regulation (likely permissible) or as an impermissible command telling states how to legislate or enforce (such as that doomed PASPA in Murphy vs. NCAA).
Because Congress offers no interim federal standards, challengers would have a credible Murphy‑style argument, making the provision at least litigation‑prone.
Commentary
Responses to the proposed legislation have been mixed:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told the Hill that it was a “giant gift to Big Tech.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Business Insider that he was he was "very supportive of the principle," arguing that AI should be regulated via national standards.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Business Insider that he opposed the proposed moratorium, saying he didn't "want to tamp down on people's efforts to address" issues posed by AI.