Sponsors (6)
The bill increases transparency, accountability, and oversight of emergency court orders and statutory compliance through required explanations and reporting, but risks slower emergency relief, greater politicization pressure on justices, and added administrative and oversight burdens.
Members of the public gain clearer, publicly reasoned explanations and disclosure of individual justices' votes when the Supreme Court issues or denies emergency injunctions, improving transparency and accountability.
Parties (including state and local governments) receive explicit, reasoned findings on the four preliminary-injunction factors, aiding legal planning, litigation strategy, and appellate review.
Federal courts and Congress will receive regular, evidence-based reports on compliance with 28 U.S.C. §2285 that enable targeted oversight, identification of gaps, and recommendations to improve consistency and reduce legal risk for courts and litigants.
Requiring detailed written explanations could slow the issuance of emergency relief, delaying time-sensitive outcomes for litigants and governments seeking urgent relief.
Public disclosure of individual justices' votes and expanded explanations could increase political pressure on justices and risk politicizing emergency decision-making.
Frequent reporting to Congress may trigger increased oversight and policy changes that impose new procedural requirements on courts, creating additional compliance burdens.
Based on analysis of 4 sections of legislative text.
Requires the Supreme Court to publish written explanations and disclose participating justices’ votes for orders granting, denying, or vacating preliminary injunctions and stays in appellate cases.
Introduced December 17, 2025 by Deborah K. Ross · Last progress December 17, 2025
Requires the Supreme Court to publish a written explanation and disclose how each participating justice voted whenever it issues an order granting, denying, or vacating a preliminary injunction or a stay of such relief in cases within its appellate jurisdiction. The required explanation must address specific legal factors (for injunctions: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest; for stays: strong showing of likelihood of success, irreparable injury to the stay applicant, substantial injury to other interested parties, and public interest). The measure also directs the Federal Judicial Center to report to Congress on compliance and allows a short delay for the first report, and contains a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if part is held invalid.