Bill Proposes Three-Judge Panels for Lawsuits Challenging Executive Branch Actions

This bill, titled the "Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025," sets out to change the rules for how federal courts handle lawsuits trying to put the brakes on actions by the executive branch – think challenges to new agency rules or presidential orders. It specifically targets Section 2284 of Title 28 in the U.S. Code, mandating that a special three-judge panel, rather than potentially just one judge, must hear these cases right from the start.

Judging by Threes

So, how would this work in practice? If someone files a lawsuit asking a court for things like an injunction, a temporary restraining order (TRO), or any other measure to block an executive branch action or presidential order, the law would require a three-judge district court to be formed. The process kicks off when the initial judge handling the case notifies the Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief Justice is then tasked with randomly picking three judges from the entire pool of active federal judges. The catch? One judge must be from a circuit court, and no more than two can be from the same judicial circuit, ensuring some geographic and judicial diversity on the panel.

No More Solo Stops

Here’s where things really shift: under this proposal, a single federal judge would lose the authority to grant immediate, temporary relief like a TRO or a preliminary injunction in these specific types of cases. Getting that quick legal pause button pushed would now require a majority vote from the three-judge panel – meaning at least two out of the three judges need to agree.

Consider a scenario: a new federal regulation is announced that could heavily impact a small business owner, or a directive comes down affecting community services. Under this bill, challenging that action quickly means convincing two out of three randomly assigned judges right away. This could make obtaining swift court intervention potentially slower or more difficult compared to the current system where persuading a single judge might suffice. The bill also explicitly bars that single judge from appointing special masters or referring parts of the case to magistrate judges, keeping the core decisions firmly with the panel.

Shifting the Legal Landscape

What's the bottom line impact? This legislation fundamentally alters the initial stages of legal battles against executive power. Mandating a three-judge panel, selected randomly by the Chief Justice, adds procedural layers right at the beginning. While the goal might be to ensure more judicial deliberation before halting government actions, a practical consequence could be slowing down the process for individuals, businesses, or groups seeking timely court review when they believe the executive branch has potentially overstepped its authority. It effectively shifts the initial gatekeeping power away from individual district judges and concentrates it within these specially convened panels.