H.R.97 - Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.97, the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2025, aims to amend Title 28 of the United States Code to limit the issuance of national injunctions. Specifically, it seeks to prevent federal courts from issuing orders that restrain the enforcement of statutes, regulations, or similar authorities against non-parties, unless those non-parties are represented by a party acting in a representative capacity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The bill intends to restrict the scope of injunctions to only those directly involved in a lawsuit. This would prevent nationwide injunctions that can halt the implementation of federal laws or policies.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Biggs of Arizona and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to limit the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This could lead to more localized and specific legal challenges to federal laws and policies.
Agencies would likely be able to continue enforcing laws and regulations in areas not directly covered by specific lawsuits. This could result in a patchwork of enforcement across the country, with some areas subject to a law while others are not.
This change could also increase the number of lawsuits filed, as parties may need to bring separate actions in different jurisdictions to achieve broader relief.
Potential Benefits
- Reduces judicial overreach: Prevents single judges from halting federal policies nationwide.
- Promotes regulatory certainty: Allows agencies to implement policies more consistently across the country, except where directly challenged.
- Encourages targeted litigation: Focuses legal challenges on specific parties and jurisdictions directly affected by a law or policy.
- Restores balance of power: Shifts power away from the judiciary and back to the executive and legislative branches in policy implementation.
- Reduces forum shopping: Limits the incentive to file lawsuits in specific districts known for issuing broad injunctions.
Potential Disadvantages
- Increases litigation costs: May require multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions to achieve the same result as a national injunction.
- Creates inconsistent enforcement: Could lead to a patchwork of regulations, with different rules applying in different states or districts.
- Delays policy implementation: Could slow down the implementation of important federal policies due to the need for multiple legal challenges.
- Harms vulnerable populations: May make it more difficult for groups to challenge policies that disproportionately affect them.
- Undermines judicial review: Limits the ability of courts to provide broad remedies for unconstitutional or unlawful government actions.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. On one hand, it could be argued that limiting nationwide injunctions respects the separation of powers by preventing judicial overreach into executive branch functions. Article III of the Constitution vests judicial power in the federal courts, but the scope of that power is subject to interpretation.
On the other hand, some may argue that the bill infringes on the judiciary's power to provide equitable relief and to ensure that the executive branch acts within the bounds of the law. The ability to issue injunctions is a traditional equitable power of courts, and limiting this power could be seen as an infringement on judicial independence.
Furthermore, the bill could potentially impact the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, as it may make it more difficult for individuals and groups to challenge government actions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).