S.1090 - Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
The "Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025" (S.1090) aims to amend Title 28 of the United States Code, specifically section 2284, to establish special procedures for civil actions seeking to restrain actions of the executive branch. This bill introduces a requirement for a three-judge district court, selected by the Chief Justice at random from all active judges, to hear cases seeking to block executive branch actions. It also mandates that a majority of this three-judge panel must agree to grant any temporary restraining order, stay, preliminary injunction, or other equitable relief.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is to make it more difficult for civil actions to restrain the executive branch. The requirement for a three-judge panel and a majority vote to grant relief introduces additional hurdles for those seeking to challenge executive actions in court. This could potentially slow down or prevent legal challenges to executive orders and policies.
Potential Benefits
- Could streamline judicial processes by establishing clear procedures for handling cases against the executive branch.
- May reduce the potential for single judges to issue sweeping injunctions against executive actions.
- Could ensure a more considered and balanced judicial review of executive actions through the involvement of a three-judge panel.
- Potentially reduces frivolous lawsuits against the executive branch.
- Could lead to more consistent application of the law across different jurisdictions.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could hinder the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge potentially unconstitutional or unlawful executive actions.
- May create delays in the judicial process, making it more difficult to obtain timely relief against executive overreach.
- Could be perceived as an attempt to shield the executive branch from judicial oversight.
- The random selection of judges might not always result in a panel with the necessary expertise for complex cases.
- Could disproportionately affect marginalized groups who rely on judicial intervention to protect their rights against executive actions.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. While Congress has the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts (Article III), this bill could be argued to infringe upon the judiciary's role in checking the executive branch. Some might argue it violates the separation of powers principle by making it more difficult to challenge executive actions. Others may contend it is a permissible regulation of judicial procedure. The bill does not appear to directly violate any specific amendment.
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).