Judicial Responsibility and Federal Equity Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2025
Proposed Federal Legislation

Section 1. Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Responsibility and Federal Equity Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2025.

---

Section 2. Purpose and Findings

(a) Purpose.
The purpose of this Act is to restore the proper constitutional balance between the judicial and executive branches by limiting the ability of individual federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions or otherwise extend their equitable powers beyond the case or controversy before them, particularly when doing so frustrates legitimate and constitutional executive actions of the President and his administration.

(b) Findings.
Congress finds that:

1. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “cases” or “controversies.”
2. District courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and serve geographically distinct areas, and their rulings are traditionally understood to bind only the parties before them.
3. The recent practice of issuing nationwide injunctions against duly enacted executive policies undermines the separation of powers and permits forum shopping by litigants seeking to block federal policy through sympathetic district judges.
4. Such injunctions usurp the role of appellate courts and the Supreme Court, lead to conflicting nationwide rulings, and invite judicial overreach into matters of national governance.
5. The equitable powers of federal courts must be tied closely to the relief necessary to redress the plaintiff’s own injury, not to remake national policy for non-parties.

---

Section 3. Limitation on Scope of Injunctive Relief by District Courts

(a) Injunctive Relief Limited to Parties.
No federal district court shall issue any injunction, declaratory judgment, or order that purports to:

1. Bind any person or entity not a party to the case or controversy before it,
2. Restrain the enforcement of federal law, regulation, or executive action outside the territorial jurisdiction of that court,
3. Operate as a nationwide injunction or have equivalent national effect beyond the redress of injury to named plaintiffs, unless specifically authorized by Congress.

(b) Definition of Nationwide Injunction.
For the purposes of this section, a nationwide injunction means an order that purports to bar the enforcement or implementation of a federal statute, regulation, or executive action in all jurisdictions of the United States, regardless of where the plaintiffs reside or the injury occurred.

---

Section 4. Special Procedures for Claims Challenging Federal Executive Actions

(a) Three-Judge Panel Requirement.
Any claim brought in federal district court seeking to enjoin or declare invalid a federal statute, regulation, or executive action on constitutional or statutory grounds must be heard by a three-judge panel, consisting of one district judge and two circuit judges, appointed by the chief judge of the circuit.

(b) Direct Appeal to Supreme Court.
Any final judgment from such a three-judge panel shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court of the United States, bypassing the usual court of appeals route.

(c) Expedited Review.
The Supreme Court shall give expedited consideration to such appeals, ensuring that national policy questions affecting executive function are not indefinitely suspended by lower court litigation.

---

Section 5. Standing Reform

(a) Clarification of Standing Doctrine.
No plaintiff shall have standing to sue in federal court to enjoin an executive order, policy, or regulation unless the plaintiff can show:

1. A concrete and particularized injury-in-fact,
2. That the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and
3. That the injury would be redressed by the relief sought.

(b) Generalized Grievances Barred.
No court shall entertain suits based solely on ideological disagreement or general opposition to executive policies.

---

Section 6. Penalties for Judicial Overreach

(a) Disciplinary Referrals.
Any federal judge who issues an order in violation of Sections 3 or 4 of this Act shall be referred to the Judicial Conference for review and possible disciplinary action under 28 U.S.C. § 351–364.

(b) Public Reporting.
A publicly accessible online database shall track and publish statistics on the issuance of nationwide injunctions, including the identity of the issuing judge, the subject matter, and the duration of such injunctions before being vacated or overturned.

---

Section 7. Severability

If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

---

Section 8. Effective Date

This Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment and shall apply to all cases filed on or after the date of enactment, and to any ongoing cases where final judgment has not been entered.

---

Commentary

This Act is designed to curb the use of lower federal courts to impose de facto vetoes on the executive branch by activist litigants and judges. It recognizes that district courts were never intended to function as super-legislatures or national policy arbiters, but rather to resolve concrete disputes between actual parties.

By eliminating the authority of a single district court judge to issue nationwide injunctions and requiring multi-judge panels for major challenges to federal policy, the Act reins in judicial activism while preserving the legitimate powers of the judiciary to protect individual rights and hold the government accountable within constitutional bounds.

It also affirms and enforces existing doctrines of standing, territorial jurisdiction, and appropriate remedy, clarifying that courts should not entertain generalized grievances or abstract ideological disputes against the administration. In doing so, it restores a judicial posture more consistent with the Constitution’s structure of limited government, checks and balances, and the original understanding of judicial power.