Judicial Relief Act Limits Court Power to Halt Enforcement Against Non-Parties, Weakens Agency Oversight

The Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 aims to fundamentally change who can benefit from a federal court order and how much power courts have to overturn government actions. If you’re not directly involved in a lawsuit, this bill makes it much harder for a court to issue an order that protects you from a law or regulation being enforced.

The 'You Gotta Sue to Benefit' Rule

Section 2 of this Act is the biggest headline. It essentially blocks federal courts from issuing any kind of order—like an injunction or a stay—to stop the enforcement of a law or regulation against someone who isn’t actually a party to the lawsuit. Think of it like this: Right now, if a trade association sues the EPA over a new rule and gets a court order halting enforcement nationwide, that order often protects all members of that industry, even those who didn’t join the suit. Under this new rule, that protection generally disappears. The court can only issue orders that affect the people in the courtroom.

The only major exception is if the lawsuit is officially set up as a representative action, like a class action suit, where one party is formally representing a large group (as defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). For the average person or small business owner who relies on a larger group’s lawsuit to protect them from a costly new rule while the legal fight plays out, this means you might be forced to comply with the rule—or face penalties—even if a court agrees the rule is likely illegal. You’d have to start your own lawsuit, which is expensive and time-consuming.

Emergency Orders Get Tighter

Section 3 restricts the use of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)—those critical emergency orders—in certain types of cases. Specifically, if a lawsuit is brought in federal court simply because the parties are from different states (known as diversity jurisdiction), the court’s ability to issue a TRO that stops the government from enforcing a law is now limited. This matters because TROs are often the first line of defense when a new law or policy is about to cause immediate, irreparable harm. If you’re relying on a quick legal stop sign in a state where you don’t reside, this new rule creates a significant procedural hurdle for getting that necessary emergency relief.

Less Power to Void Agency Actions

Sections 4 and 5 focus on how courts review actions taken by federal agencies, like the IRS, FDA, or OSHA. Section 5 makes a subtle but powerful change to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how agencies operate. Currently, if a court finds an agency action unlawful, it can “hold unlawful and set aside” that action. This bill strikes the phrase “and set aside.”

This is not just semantics. While the court can still declare an action “unlawful,” removing the explicit power to “set aside” it could weaken the judicial remedy. It raises the question: If a court finds a new regulation is illegal, but can’t formally void it, what happens next? This change seems designed to reduce the court’s ability to completely cancel a bad rule, potentially forcing agencies to simply tweak the rule rather than having the slate wiped clean. For anyone affected by an agency’s bad decision—say, a farmer whose land use is restricted by an unlawful environmental rule—this could mean a slower, less definitive path to relief.

Section 5 also clarifies that judicial review of agency actions is limited strictly to a “person” as defined in the APA. While this might sound technical, it tightens the door on who exactly can challenge a rule, potentially excluding certain types of associations or entities from bringing suit under this specific statute.