Search

Trending publication

House Bill Containing 10-Year Moratorium on State AI Regulation Heads to the Senate

Print PDF
| Legal Advisory

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed its proposed budget reconciliation bill in a 215-214-1 vote. Although the bill has mostly generated headlines for its tax and spending provisions, it also features a proposed 10-year ban on any state law or regulation “limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.” The moratorium features exemptions for AI-friendly state laws and regulations, such as those aimed at streamlining licensure and removing barriers to AI use. Additionally, the bill exempts states seeking to use generally applicable laws to enforce requirements on AI, so long as those laws apply to systems with comparable functions to AI.

Proponents of the moratorium argue it is crucial to establish and ensure U.S. superiority in the AI space, while opponents believe the moratorium prevents states from enforcing laws on the books and creates a regulatory vacuum. Among the opponents are 40 state attorneys general, who drafted a letter to Congress opposing the moratorium as “sweeping and wholly destructive.” The bill will likely face significant hurdles in the Senate due to Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act – also known as the “Byrd Rule” – which prevents extraneous legislation from being included in a reconciliation bill. Moreover, the bill may face bipartisan opposition from Senators who wish to maintain state AI regulation in the absence of federal law on the issue. Senator Blackburn of Tennessee, for example, stated: “until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium.”

As demonstrated by the moratorium, laws and regulations concerning AI are constantly evolving. Both cross-border and domestic companies, whether implementing or developing AI, should be aware that the landscape is unclear, and action concerning AI should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

This advisory was prepared by Nutter’s Corporate Department. If you would like additional information, please contact any member of the department or your Nutter attorney at 617.439.2000.

The author would like to thank Summer Associate Matthew Wolpe for his contributions to the article.

This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.

More Publications >
Back to Page

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek