New Bill Mandates Three-Judge Panel to Block Executive Actions, Making Immediate Challenges Harder

The “Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025” isn't about stopping actual insurrections; it’s about making it significantly tougher to challenge the Executive Branch in court. Specifically, this bill targets any civil lawsuit that tries to put an immediate stop—like a temporary restraining order or injunction—on an action taken by the President or a federal agency (SEC. 2).

The New Hurdle: Three Judges, Not One

Right now, if a state, a company, or a non-profit thinks a new federal rule is illegal and sues to stop it, the case usually lands before a single federal district judge. That judge can, if they agree the rule is causing immediate harm, issue a temporary order to halt the rule’s implementation while the lawsuit proceeds. This bill changes that completely. Under this new procedure, if you file a lawsuit asking for an injunction against an executive action, the case must immediately be kicked up to a special three-judge panel (SEC. 2).

Think about it like this: If the Department of Labor issues a new rule that dramatically changes overtime pay, and a small business owner needs an immediate court order to stop the rule from bankrupting them, they can’t just ask one judge anymore. They have to wait for this special panel to assemble.

The Random Selection and the Majority Rule

Setting up this panel isn't quick. The judge who initially gets the case must notify the Chief Justice of the United States, who then randomly selects three active judges from across the country. One must be a Circuit Judge, and no more than two can be from the same judicial circuit. The original judge can only sit on the panel if they are randomly chosen (SEC. 2).

This national random selection process adds time and complexity. More importantly, once the panel is formed, they can’t grant any temporary stop order unless a majority of the three judges agrees. That means you need at least two judges to vote in your favor to stop the executive action. For the average person or organization fighting a federal agency, this is a massive change. It raises the bar for emergency relief from a single judicial opinion to a consensus of two judges, effectively giving the Executive Branch more time to implement its policy before the courts can intervene (SEC. 2).

What This Means for Everyday Life

This bill doesn't just affect high-profile political cases; it hits the nuts and bolts of regulation. Imagine an environmental group challenging a new federal permit allowing a major pipeline, or a state challenging a federal mandate on school funding. Under the current system, if a single judge finds the action clearly illegal, they can grant an immediate halt. Under this bill, that potentially illegal action stays in effect while the three judges are being selected, convened, and debating the issue. The bill also explicitly bans any single judge on the panel from appointing help, like a special master, or deciding on preliminary relief alone—all power is centralized in the panel (SEC. 2).

The practical takeaway is that if the Executive Branch rolls out a policy—whether it’s about student loans, workplace safety, or environmental standards—it will be significantly harder and take longer to get a court to press the pause button. This structure inherently favors the Executive Branch by making immediate judicial oversight more cumbersome and less efficient, potentially allowing controversial or overreaching actions to take root before they can be effectively challenged.