4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Apr 9, 2025)

Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 1526 are substantively identical, with the only change being the addition of the Clerk's name in the attestation line for the version referred to the Senate. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.

H.R. 1526119th CongressIntroduced Feb 24, 2025

NORRA of 2025

Passed HouseLawMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: Apr 10, 2025

Bottom line

The bill aims to curtail the ability of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while creating a specialized, more stringent process for multi-state challenges to executive actions to obtain broader relief.

What it actually does

This bill significantly restricts the authority of United States district courts to issue injunctive relief, limiting such orders primarily to the parties directly involved in a case and those they represent. It establishes a specific exception for cases brought by two or more states from different circuits challenging executive branch actions, mandating these cases be heard by a randomly selected three-judge panel which may issue broader injunctions under specific considerations.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that the bill restores proper judicial authority by preventing single district court judges from issuing 'rogue rulings' that effectively legislate for the entire nation, thereby upholding the separation of powers and preventing judicial overreach. They contend it addresses concerns about judicial activism and the politicization of the judiciary, ensuring that injunctions are tailored to the specific parties and controversies before the court.

Opponents contend

Opponents would likely argue that this bill severely limits a critical check on executive power, particularly when the executive branch acts unlawfully, and could lead to a patchwork of laws across the country. They might contend that universal injunctions are sometimes necessary to provide consistent application of law and protect broad classes of individuals or entities from illegal government action, and that restricting them would undermine access to justice.

The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its legal and policy implications are extensive, requiring significant time for comprehensive understanding.

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(a)

Restriction on Universal Injunctive Relief

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision prohibits U.S. district courts from issuing injunctions that apply broadly beyond the specific parties involved in the case and those they represent under federal rules. Essentially, it aims to stop single judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that affect individuals or entities not directly before the court.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupFederal District CourtsImpactReduced authority to issue broad injunctive relief.MechanismStatutory amendment to Title 28, United States Code.ScaleFundamental change to judicial power.

GroupLitigants seeking injunctive reliefImpactLimited scope of potential relief, potentially requiring multiple lawsuits.MechanismInjunctions will only apply to parties to the case.ScaleSignificant for cases challenging federal policies.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision prevents judicial overreach, ensuring that judges do not act as policymakers by issuing injunctions that affect the entire nation based on a single case. They believe it restores the proper balance of power among the branches of government.

Critics contend

Critics contend this limitation would weaken the judiciary's ability to check executive branch abuses, potentially leading to a fragmented legal landscape where federal policies are enjoined in some jurisdictions but not others, creating confusion and unequal application of law.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances concerns about judicial activism against the need for effective judicial review of federal actions and consistent application of law across the country.

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(b)

Special Panel for Multi-State Challenges to Executive Branch Actions

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision creates an exception to the general limitation on injunctions. If two or more states from different judicial circuits challenge an executive branch action, their case must be heard by a randomly selected three-judge panel. This panel can issue broader injunctions, but must consider the interest of justice, risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and preservation of constitutional separation of powers.

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(c)

Direct Appeal Option for Three-Judge Panel Injunctions

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This provision allows parties to an order granting or denying injunctive relief from a three-judge panel (established under subsection (b)) to choose whether to appeal to the relevant circuit court of appeals or directly to the Supreme Court.

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.

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Apr 9, 2025)

H.R. 1526119th CongressIntroduced Feb 24, 2025

NORRA of 2025

Passed HouseLawMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: Apr 10, 2025

Bottom line

What it actually does

Proponents argue

Opponents contend

The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its legal and policy implications are extensive, requiring significant time for comprehensive understanding.

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(a)

Restriction on Universal Injunctive Relief

prominently featuredmoderately complex

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupFederal District CourtsImpactReduced authority to issue broad injunctive relief.MechanismStatutory amendment to Title 28, United States Code.ScaleFundamental change to judicial power.

Supporters argue

Critics contend

Tradeoffs

The provision balances concerns about judicial activism against the need for effective judicial review of federal actions and consistent application of law across the country.

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(b)

Special Panel for Multi-State Challenges to Executive Branch Actions

prominently featuredmoderately complex

Section 2(a), adding new 28 U.S.C. § 1370(c)

Direct Appeal Option for Three-Judge Panel Injunctions

mentioned in summarystraightforward