Husted backs bill to clarify the scope of judicial relief, end unconstitutional judicial overreach

WASHINGTON - Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) has joined Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025. The bill would limit federal court orders to parties that are directly before the court-ending the practice of universal injunctions and clarifying the constitutional role of the judicial branch

"District court judges have exceeded their authority and inserted themselves in national policy debates where they don't belong. I'm supporting this bill to restore balance to our courts because no matter what side of the aisle you're on, weaponizing the judiciary for political ends is wrong," said Husted.

Under this bill, parties seeking nationwide relief would be required to file a class action lawsuit. The bill would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act to limit the impact of courts' decisions to the parties before them and to make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable.

"The Judicial Relief Clarification Act clarifies the scope of judicial power and resolves illegitimate judicial infringement upon the executive branch. It's a commonsense bill that's needed to provide long-term constitutional clarity and curb district courts' growing tendency to overstep by issuing sweeping, nationwide orders," said Grassley.

Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Ashley Moody (R-Fla.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) also cosponsored the bill.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Background:

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits courts to deciding "cases" or "controversies." Nevertheless, it has become increasingly common for federal judges to issue sweeping "universal injunctions" that apply even to people who are not before the court. Universal injunctions defy two centuries of historic precedent. Scholars have found no clear record of such an order before 1963, as they have become common only in the last decade. In the first two months of President Trump's second term, district court judges have issued more universal injunctions against his policies than the Biden administration experienced in four years.

Concern about this recent practice spans the ideological spectrum. In 2020, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas explained, "By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions." In 2022, Justice Kagan said, "It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.

The U.S. Supreme Court has failed to end this practice, and Article III gives Congress the authority to establish, organize and regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Congress has also enacted rules governing the review of agency actions through the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA). Under Section 706 of the APA, a person or entity that claims to have been unlawfully harmed by a federal agency action may seek relief in federal court. Currently, many courts interpret the APA to allow for a single district judge to vacate agency actions for everyone, including parties that are not before the court.