NORRA of 2025
Click any stage to learn more about the legislative process.
Would bar individual federal district court judges from issuing injunctions that extend beyond the named parties in a case, effectively ending the practice of single-judge nationwide or 'universal' injunctions that block federal policies across the entire country.
It would also create a randomly selected three-judge panel process for multi-state challenges to executive branch actions — preserving a narrower pathway to broader relief while restructuring how federal courts can check the executive branch.
What this bill would do
What it would do
The bill would add a new section to title 28 of the U.S. Code restricting federal district courts from issuing injunctions that extend beyond the parties in the case before them. A single district court judge could not block a federal policy nationwide — any injunction would bind only the named plaintiffs and those they formally represent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The bill also creates an exception: when two or more states from different federal circuits jointly challenge an executive branch action, that case would be referred to a randomly selected three-judge panel. That panel could issue broader relief after weighing the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and constitutional separation of powers.
The bill would not eliminate injunctive relief altogether, nor would it affect class actions where absent parties are formally represented. Appeals from three-judge panel rulings would, at the appealing party's election, go either to the relevant circuit court or directly to the Supreme Court.
Key provisions
- 1Would prohibit district courts from issuing injunctions that extend beyond the named parties and those they formally represent, ending single-judge nationwide injunctions.
- 2Would require multi-state challenges to executive branch actions, brought by states from different circuits, to be referred to a randomly selected three-judge panel.
- 3Would authorize three-judge panels to issue broader injunctions after weighing justice, irreparable harm to non-parties, and constitutional separation of powers.
- 4Would give parties in three-judge panel cases the choice to appeal to the relevant circuit court or directly to the Supreme Court.
Who would be affected
Federal district court judges, whose authority to grant broad injunctive relief would be significantly curtailed. State attorneys general who file multi-state lawsuits challenging federal executive actions would have access to the new three-judge panel process. Individuals, organizations, and non-party states that currently rely on nationwide injunctions for protection in cases where they are not named plaintiffs would no longer benefit from single-judge universal orders.
Why it matters
If enacted, anyone not a named party in a federal lawsuit could no longer be shielded by a district court injunction — they would need to file their own suit or join an existing one to obtain relief. This would affect the practical reach of challenges to federal executive policies, since currently a single successful plaintiff can halt a rule or action nationwide. The three-judge panel pathway preserves some avenue to broader relief but only for multi-state executive challenges.
What would change
Changes to existing law
Amends 28 U.S.C., Chapter 85 (Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification) (Sec. 2)
Adds new section 1370, prohibiting district courts from issuing injunctions beyond the case parties and creating a three-judge panel exception for multi-state executive-branch challenges.
Funding and costs
Congressional Budget Office estimate
CBO concluded it has no basis to estimate the budgetary effects of H.R. 1526, the NORRA of 2025, because the bill's impact depends on unpredictable future litigation and judicial decisions.
CBO could not produce dollar estimates for direct spending, revenues, the deficit, or discretionary spending for any scoring window (2025, 2025–2030, or 2025–2035), because the bill's effects hinge on which federal actions are litigated and how judges respond. H.R. 1526 would restrict U.S. district courts from issuing broad injunctions — court orders requiring or prohibiting action — that apply to people or entities not party to a lawsuit, while still allowing vacatur (setting aside a regulation or executive action), which can have similar sweeping effects. Because federal actions subject to litigation can affect mandatory spending, revenues, and appropriated spending in ways CBO cannot predict, the office found it impossible to estimate a net budgetary effect. CBO identified no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates in the bill, though statutory pay-as-you-go procedures do apply.
How implementation would work
The restriction would be self-executing upon enactment — district courts would simply be prohibited from issuing broader injunctions without any rulemaking. The multi-state exception would be triggered when qualifying cases arise: the district court would refer the case to a three-judge panel assembled randomly under existing 28 U.S.C. § 2284 procedures, rather than by the circuit's chief judge. That panel would apply a three-factor balancing test before granting broad relief. Parties would then choose their appellate forum — the relevant circuit court or the Supreme Court directly — without further procedural steps.
Legislative status & sources
Latest action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Official CRS summary
Show the CRS summaryHide the CRS summary
This bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions.
Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.
Legislative subjects
Federal district courts; Judicial procedure and administration; Law
Committee report
H. Rept. 119-40