The "Court Shopping Deterrence Act" amends Title 28 to require that appeals of nationwide injunctions issued by a U.S. District Court be made directly to the Supreme Court.
John Rose
Representative
TN-6
The "Court Shopping Deterrence Act" amends Title 28 of the U.S. Code to allow direct appeals to the Supreme Court for any nationwide injunction issued by a U.S. District Court. A nationwide injunction is defined as a court order that restricts the enforcement of a Federal statute, regulation, or order against a non-party. This change aims to prevent plaintiffs from strategically filing lawsuits in specific districts to obtain nationwide injunctions.
Proposed Bill Sends Nationwide Injunction Appeals Directly to Supreme Court, Bypassing Circuit Courts
Okay, let's break down the 'Court Shopping Deterrence Act.' In plain English, this bill changes the rules for appealing a specific type of court order called a 'nationwide injunction.' Right now, if a single federal district judge issues an order blocking a federal law or rule across the entire country, appeals typically go through a regional Circuit Court first. This bill proposes cutting out that middle step.
Straight to the Top: The New Appeal Path
Under this proposal, outlined in a new Section 2285 for Title 28 of the U.S. Code, if a District Court issues what the bill defines as a 'nationwide injunction,' any appeal goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. What counts as a 'nationwide injunction' here? It's defined as a federal court order stopping the government from enforcing a federal law, regulation, or order against people who aren't even part of the original lawsuit (unless they're formally represented).
Think about big, controversial federal policies – on immigration, environmental rules, healthcare mandates, you name it. Sometimes, a single judge in one state can hit pause on that policy for everyone, everywhere. This bill aims to put the ultimate decision on whether that pause stands directly and quickly before the Supreme Court.
Faster Rulings, Fewer Reviews?
On paper, this could mean faster final answers on major legal challenges. Instead of potentially years winding through the District Court, then the Circuit Court, and then maybe the Supreme Court, this creates an express lane for these specific, high-impact injunctions. The idea seems to be getting legal certainty quicker when a policy's nationwide fate hangs in the balance.
However, it also means skipping the layer of review provided by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. These courts often play a crucial role in refining legal arguments, examining different perspectives, and sometimes resolving issues before they even need Supreme Court attention. Sending these cases straight upstairs could significantly increase the Supreme Court's workload and potentially lead to less developed legal records for the Justices to consider. It concentrates significant power by making the Supreme Court the first and only stop for appeals on these nationwide orders, raising questions about the balance within the judicial system and potentially straining the high court's resources.