Sponsors (13)
The bill increases transparency and accountability for Supreme Court emergency orders and creates regular oversight reporting, but it risks slowing urgent relief, raising litigation and administrative costs, and creating separation-of-powers concerns.
Members of the public and taxpayers will see written reasons and how each participating justice voted on Supreme Court emergency injunctions, increasing transparency and public accountability for emergency decisions.
Parties affected by emergency relief — including state and local governments and other litigants — will receive clearer written explanations of preliminary relief decisions, helping them understand legal grounds and plan next steps.
Requiring explanations for APA-related emergency orders improves administrative accountability by clarifying how courts treat agency actions under chapters 5 and 7 of title 5.
State and local governments and litigants may face delays in obtaining emergency relief because courts must draft written justifications, potentially slowing urgent orders.
Taxpayers and parties could incur higher litigation costs as more detailed published reasoning prompts additional briefing, rehearing petitions, or longer counsel preparation.
Mandating disclosure of individual justices' votes and imposing statutory process on emergency orders may raise separation-of-powers and judicial-administration concerns that affect judicial independence and institutional functioning.
Based on analysis of 4 sections of legislative text.
Introduced December 17, 2025 by Richard Blumenthal · Last progress December 17, 2025
Requires the Supreme Court to publish written explanations and disclose how each participating justice voted when issuing orders that grant, deny, or vacate preliminary injunctions or stays of such relief. Creates a biennial compliance report to Congress from the Federal Judicial Center about how well the Court follows the new disclosure rule and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if part is struck down. The written explanation must address the legal factors used in emergency procedural rulings (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest, or the parallel standards for stays) and permits multiple opinions representing a majority; it excludes routine administrative or scheduling orders and ordinary certiorari petitions that do not decide injunctive relief or stays.