Sponsors (6)
The bill increases transparency and oversight of Supreme Court emergency orders and compliance with emergency-order rules—improving predictability and accountability for litigants and lawmakers—but it may slow urgent relief, raise administrative costs, and risk politicizing justices' votes.
Litigants, federal agencies, parties, and the public will receive written explanations and a record of how each participating justice voted when the Supreme Court issues or denies emergency injunctions or stays, increasing transparency and predictability of emergency relief decisions.
Congress, courts, and judicial staff will get regular Federal Judicial Center (FJC) compliance reports and recommendations that can identify practical reforms, improve implementation of 28 U.S.C. §2285, and reduce legal risk for courts and court employees.
Hospitals, health systems, schools, and other parties seeking urgent relief could face slower access to emergency orders because requiring written explanations for emergency rulings may delay the Court's ability to act quickly.
The Supreme Court, the Federal Judicial Center, and lower courts will incur additional administrative and staffing costs to prepare written emergency opinions and biennial compliance reports, increasing fiscal burdens on taxpayers and court budgets.
Public disclosure of how individual justices voted on emergency applications could politicize urgent decisions and invite external pressure on justices, risking perceptions of reduced impartiality.
Based on analysis of 4 sections of legislative text.
Introduced December 17, 2025 by Deborah K. Ross · Last progress December 17, 2025
Requires the Supreme Court to publish written explanations and disclose how each participating justice voted whenever it issues an order granting, denying, or vacating preliminary injunctive relief or issues a stay (or grants/denies/vacates a stay of such relief). The explanations must address specified legal factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities or substantial injury, and public interest). The bill also requires recurring compliance reports from the Federal Judicial Center and includes a severability rule. The measure does not change substantive legal standards or the Court’s jurisdiction, allows multiple opinions that together form a majority explanation, excludes routine administrative/scheduling orders and ordinary certiorari petitions, and sets a schedule for biennial compliance reports beginning after enactment (with a one-time delay option for the first report).