Sponsor
Jamie Ben Raskin
Representative · D-MD
Representative · D-MD
Imposes stricter standards for Supreme Court stays and All Writs injunctions and requires on‑the‑record reasons to be published on the Court’s public docket, with a short emergency exception.
Official title: To amend section 2101 of title 28, United States Code, to set forth factors for stays pending appeal.
Introduced May 21, 2026 by Jamie Ben Raskin · Last progress May 21, 2026
The bill increases transparency and restricts broad, nationwide emergency relief to reduce surprise legal disruption, but in doing so raises the bar and publicity requirements for emergency court orders — which can delay or complicate rapid remedies and spur more litigation.
Taxpayers, state and local governments, nonprofits, and the public gain clearer, public explanations whenever the Supreme Court issues or denies emergency stays or injunctions because the Court must put its basis on the record and publish it.
Small businesses, state and local governments, and taxpayers face fewer sudden nationwide injunctions and unexpected legal disruptions because the bill raises the standard for emergency nationwide relief and limits broad precedential weight of single-court stays.
In urgent situations, individuals and governments can still receive immediate emergency relief while the Court provides a written explanation within seven days, preserving prompt protection alongside later accountability.
Individuals, nonprofits, and state/local governments needing immediate court protection may face delays or be denied emergency relief because the bill raises evidentiary thresholds and requires detailed, published reasons.
State governments, taxpayers, and businesses may see more litigation and inconsistent court outcomes because limiting a stay’s precedential effect and imposing vague standards (e.g., 'indisputably clear' or 'critical and exigent') encourages repeat challenges in different jurisdictions.
Lower courts, federal and state officials, and litigants could get less useful guidance because barring or constraining the Supreme Court from referencing likelihood of success or merits may produce more formalistic, harder-to-apply emergency rulings.
Based on analysis of 3 sections of legislative text.
Imposes new limits and transparency requirements on the Supreme Court’s use of emergency stays and All Writs Act injunctions. It requires the Court or an individual Justice to state on the record why a stay or writ is warranted, to show specific kinds of injury or an “indisputably clear” legal right, and to publish those reasons on the Court’s public docket (with a short emergency exception). The bill narrows the standards for when the Court may suspend or alter lower-court injunctive relief and increases public disclosure of the Court’s reasoning for such orders. Affects how the Supreme Court handles emergency relief: tighter substantive thresholds for granting stays or writs, limits on the precedential effect of stays, and mandated on‑the‑record and docketed explanations when stays or All Writs injunctions are granted or denied (with a limited 7‑day delayed-publication allowance for urgent actions).