Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds a new section to Title 28 directing that appeals from district-court orders that grant a "nationwide injunction" must be taken directly to the Supreme Court. It defines "nationwide injunction" as a federal-court order restraining enforcement of a federal statute, regulation, order, or similar authority against a non‑party, except where the non‑party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Liberals emphasize lost remedies and rights protections; conservatives emphasize preventing judicial overreach
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly prescribes a direct appeal path to the Supreme Court for district-court-issued nationwide injunctions and supplies a basic statutory definition of 'nationwide injunction.'
The bill adds a new section to Title 28 directing that appeals from district-court orders that grant a "nationwide injunction" must be taken directly to the Supreme Court.
It defines "nationwide injunction" as a federal-court order restraining enforcement of a federal statute, regulation, order, or similar authority against a non‑party, except where the non‑party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The change creates a statutory route for direct Supreme Court review of such orders.
Technically narrow and low-cost but addresses a politically charged judicial practice and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly prescribes a direct appeal path to the Supreme Court for district-court-issued nationwide injunctions and supplies a basic statutory definition of 'nationwide injunction.'
Liberals emphasize lost remedies and rights protections; conservatives emphasize preventing judicial overreach
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize lost remedies and rights protections; conservatives emphasize preventing judicial overreach
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The provision centralizes review of broad injunctive relief and may make it harder for affected individuals or groups to obtain timely nationwide remedies.
It could reduce access to relief in rights-related cases and concentrate decision-making in the Supreme Court.
Mixed view.
The provision addresses legitimate concerns about inconsistent nationwide injunctions and forum shopping, but raises practical concerns about Supreme Court capacity and potential delays for relief.
Would favor procedural safeguards and clearer definitions.
Likely supportive.
The measure curbs nationwide injunctions issued by single district judges and deters forum shopping, restoring a higher-level, uniform review for orders that block federal policy nationwide.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and low-cost but addresses a politically charged judicial practice and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize lost remedies and rights protections; conservatives emphasize preventing judicial overreach
Technically narrow and low-cost but addresses a politically charged judicial practice and lacks compromise features, reducing enactment pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly prescribes a direct appeal path to the Supreme Court for district-court-issued nationwide injunctions and supplies a basic statutory definition of 'nationw…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.