Back
stripped by a near-unanimous 99-1 Senate vote
webRelevant to AI governance discussions around federalism and regulatory fragmentation; useful context for understanding the U.S. legislative landscape shaping AI deployment rules as of 2025.
Metadata
Importance: 42/100news articleanalysis
Summary
This legal analysis from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck examines the Senate's near-unanimous 99-1 vote stripping a federal AI preemption provision from a bill, preserving states' authority to regulate artificial intelligence. The piece explains the implications for the patchwork of state-level AI laws and what it means for companies navigating compliance across jurisdictions.
Key Points
- •The Senate voted 99-1 to remove a provision that would have preempted state AI regulations with federal law.
- •Without federal preemption, states retain authority to enact and enforce their own AI governance laws.
- •Companies operating nationally must continue to navigate a complex, inconsistent patchwork of state-level AI regulations.
- •The vote signals Congressional reluctance to strip states of AI oversight powers, at least in the near term.
- •This outcome has significant compliance implications for AI developers and deployers across multiple industries.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Failed and Stalled AI Proposals | Analysis | 63.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Apr 9, 20268 KB
States Can Continue Regulating AI—For Now | Brownstein
Skip to content
See All Insights
States Can Continue Regulating AI—For Now
Brownstein Client Alert , July 7, 2025
Share
share
share
share
Print
Subscribe
Congress has passed the budget reconciliation package known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R.1) without the controversial moratorium on state and local artificial intelligence (AI) laws originally included in the House version. The provision was stripped by a near unanimous 99-1 Senate vote and H.R.1 was then returned to the House and subsequently signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.
Congress’ Stance So Far
The House-passed AI moratorium would have barred states and localities from enforcing any law or regulation targeting “artificial intelligence models,” “AI systems” or “automated decision systems” for 10 years. While pitched as a way to prevent a regulatory patchwork and promote innovation, the broad definitions raised serious concerns about scope and impact.
To comply with Senate reconciliation rules, the Senate Commerce Committee attempted to revise the language by tying Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (“BEAD”) program eligibility to compliance with the moratorium. However, the proposal created more confusion than clarity, especially around whether it applied to just the new $500 million in BEAD program funding or the entire $42 billion program.
The provision drew strong opposition from a bipartisan coalition of 40 state attorneys general and 17 Republican governors . Sen, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) worked on crafting a compromise to shorten the moratorium to five years and exempt laws related to child safety, deepfakes, publicity rights and consumer protection. Ultimately, due to continued ambiguity, Sen. Blackburn withdrew her support for that effort and offered an amendment to remove the language entirely, which passed by a 99-1 vote.
Current Standing for States
With the moratorium removed, states retain full authority to regulate artificial intelligence. This is especially significant for California, Colorado, New York, Connecticut, Texas and other states already advancing or enacting AI laws. In 2025, every single state along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands introduced AI-related legislation, and over half of the states have enacted some kind of AI-related laws.
In California, several major pieces of legislation are currently advancing, including SB 420, which seeks to establish an AI “bill of rights” and require impact assessments and transparency measures; SB 243, which aims to protect minors from manipulative chatbot systems; and AB 1018, which proposes to require strict disclo
... (truncated, 8 KB total)Resource ID:
ec2411f2638bd8fe | Stable ID: sid_5JNyTjptPG