Sponsors (2)
Ask me about this bill
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Amends 28 U.S.C. 2284 to set special courtroom procedures when a civil case seeks to restrain actions by the executive branch. It requires such suits to be heard by a three-judge district court selected under the new rules, makes a majority of that court necessary to grant most forms of equitable relief, and prohibits a single district judge from appointing a master or issuing preliminary or permanent equitable relief in those cases.
Amends Section 2284 of title 28 to change the circumstances and text in subsection (a), including language that a three-judge court shall be convened when an action is commenced against any department or office of the executive branch that seeks declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, vacatur, a stay, or other equitable relief against an action of the executive branch or an executive order of the President.
Revises the heading (matter preceding paragraph (1)) of subsection (b) by replacing the phrase "In any action" with the phrase "Procedures generally."
Adds a new subsection (c) titled "Procedures for actions seeking To restrain executive branch actions," establishing special procedures that apply when a request for three judges is filed in actions described in subsection (a)(2).
When a request for three judges is filed in an action described in subsection (a)(2), the judge receiving the request must, unless that judge determines three judges are not required, immediately notify the Chief Justice of the United States.
The Chief Justice shall designate three judges at random from a list of all judges in active service regardless of circuit, subject to two limits: (i) one of the three must be a circuit judge in active service; and (ii) not more than two of the three may be serving in the same judicial circuit.
Who is affected and how:
Plaintiffs and litigants seeking injunctions or other equitable relief against federal agencies or executive officials: will generally face a higher procedural hurdle because relief must be approved by a majority of a three-judge panel rather than by a single judge. That may reduce the frequency or speed of emergency relief.
Federal district courts and judges: must implement new selection procedures to form three-judge courts, manage multi-judge dockets, and require majority votes for most equitable remedies; single judges will lose specific authorities (appointing masters and issuing preliminary or permanent equitable relief in these cases).
Executive branch agencies and officials: gain a procedural protection because single-judge emergency relief against them is restricted; defense coordination may still be more complex due to three-judge panels but could lower the risk of isolated single-judge injunctions.
Court administration and caseload management: increased complexity in assembling panels and scheduling may cause slower resolutions and increased administrative burden. Cases may take longer before preliminary or permanent rulings are entered, with potential effects on litigation cost and timing.
Legal strategy and separation-of-powers considerations: lawyers may alter strategies (e.g., forum selection, timing) in response to a higher procedural bar; observers may view the change as shifting the balance in separation-of-powers disputes by making immediate judicial restraints on executive action more procedurally difficult.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced March 24, 2025 by Mike Lee · Last progress March 24, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate