Overview

Title

To amend section 2284 of title 28, United States Code, to establish special procedures for civil actions seeking to restrain executive branch actions.

ELI5 AI

S. 1090 wants to change the rules for how certain courts handle cases when people are trying to stop the President's actions. It talks about picking judges in a special way and how those judges can make decisions to pause the President's actions.

Summary AI

S. 1090, titled the "Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025," seeks to change section 2284 of title 28 in the United States Code. This bill proposes special procedures for legal actions aimed at stopping actions by the executive branch. It specifies how a three-judge panel should be formed for such cases and outlines steps about the appointment of judges and the issuance of certain court orders. The bill was introduced by Mr. Lee and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Published

2025-03-24
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Introduced in Senate
Date: 2025-03-24
Package ID: BILLS-119s1090is

Keywords AI

judicial procedures executive branch restraint three-judge panel court orders chief justice role temporary restraining orders civil actions random judge selection equitable relief legislative act

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
712
Pages:
4
Sentences:
11

Language

Nouns: 185
Verbs: 62
Adjectives: 39
Adverbs: 5
Numbers: 30
Entities: 36

Complexity

Average Token Length:
3.95
Average Sentence Length:
64.73
Token Entropy:
4.78
Readability (ARI):
32.80

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The legislation titled "S. 1090" aims to modify a specific part of the United States legal code, namely section 2284 of title 28. The primary objective is to establish special procedures for handling civil lawsuits that attempt to halt actions taken by the executive branch of the government. This involves creating a distinct process for forming three-judge panels, which will oversee these cases, as well as stipulating the judicial requirements and restrictions for granting various forms of legal relief.

Significant Issues

One of the most notable aspects of this bill is its title, "Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025," which is provocative and can hold political connotations. Such a title might elicit polarized views and affect how the public perceives the legislation’s intention.

A critical point of concern is the method prescribed for selecting judges for three-judge panels. Selecting judges "at random from a list of all judges in active service regardless of circuit" raises questions about transparency and fairness. Clarity is needed to define what "random" means in this context and how such a list of judges is compiled.

Additionally, by requiring a majority of the district court to approve temporary restraining orders or other quick judicial responses, the bill places a high threshold on granting such relief. This could slow the judicial response necessary to address potential executive overreach, affecting the ability of the courts to act swiftly when time-sensitive decisions are required.

The bill’s language around "other equitable relief" could also invite various interpretations, making its practical application uncertain and subject to legal challenges.

The involvement of the Chief Justice in appointing the three-judge panels, despite the stipulation of randomness, might still be seen as open to manipulation. This could impact public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary under these new procedures.

Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, this bill could impact citizens by altering how quickly and efficiently judicial checks can be applied to executive actions. On the one hand, setting higher standards for judicial intervention might be viewed as a way to prevent courts from swiftly blocking executive actions, which can ensure more stable governance. On the other hand, if executive actions violate rights or overstep authority, delays in judicial response can exacerbate harm before an action is held accountable.

Specific stakeholders, such as civil rights organizations, could find this bill concerning as it might restrict their ability to seek immediate judicial relief against actions they perceive as unconstitutional. Conversely, some governmental agencies and executives might view these changes as positive, providing them with greater latitude and less immediate hindrance by judicial bodies.

In summary, while the bill promises to create a structured and arguably more rigorous approach to handling legal challenges against the executive branch, it raises several questions about judicial transparency, fairness, and timeliness that could impact public trust in the judicial system’s ability to check executive power effectively.

Issues

  • The title of the act 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025' is provocative and carries political implications, potentially influencing public perception and leading to biased interpretations of the bill's intent. (Section 1)

  • The process for selecting judges 'at random from a list of all judges in active service regardless of circuit' could be seen as lacking transparency or fairness, creating a potential for disputes about what random actually entails and how the list of judges is compiled. (Section 2)

  • The high threshold for granting temporary relief, where 'No temporary restraining order... may be granted unless a majority of the district court for the action orders that such relief be granted', could impede swift action in urgent matters, raising concerns about the ability to quickly respond to executive overreach. (Section 2)

  • The potential ambiguity in the phrase 'other equitable relief' lacks clarity and could result in inconsistent application, inviting legal challenges and differing interpretations. (Section 2)

  • The procedures outlined for selecting a three-judge panel, although stipulating randomness, may still lead to perceptions of manipulation due to the role of the Chief Justice in the designation process. This could affect the perceived impartiality of judicial decisions under this framework. (Section 2)

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The "Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025" is the short title of this legislative act, indicating the name by which it may be referred to.

2. Special procedures for civil actions seeking to restrain executive branch actions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, Congress is outlining special rules for court cases that try to stop actions by the executive branch. It specifies when and how three-judge panels are chosen, what kinds of court orders require multiple judges, and limits individual judges from making certain decisions on their own in these cases.