HR4124-119

In Committee

Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act

119th Congress Introduced Jun 25, 2025

Summary

What This Bill Does

The Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act restructures federal appellate review in a way designed to reduce Supreme Court control and nationwide injunction practice. It routes direct appeals from three-judge district courts, certiorari and certified questions from courts of appeals, and final district-court review references to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rather than the Supreme Court. It creates a 13-judge multi-circuit panel convened annually by the D.C. Circuit chief judge, with one randomly selected judge from each regional circuit and a randomly selected chief judge, and assigns cases involving the United States, federal agencies, constitutional interpretation, federal statutory interpretation, or executive orders to that panel. A 70 percent supermajority is required to affirm decisions invalidating Acts of Congress or federal actions. Nationwide-injunction requests restraining federal laws, regulations, or orders against nonparties must transfer to the D.C. Circuit on timely motion, and the D.C. Circuit can consolidate related cases. Emergency or shadow-docket reversals by the Supreme Court, D.C. Circuit, or the panel must include published written explanations.

Who Benefits and How

Federal agency defendants benefit because nationwide injunction requests and many federal-law challenges would move to a centralized D.C. Circuit process. Congressional committees defending statutes benefit from a 70 percent panel threshold before federal laws are affirmed as unconstitutional or invalid. Emergency appeal litigants benefit from the published explanation requirement for reversals. D.C. Circuit court clerks benefit from expanded jurisdiction over direct appeals, certified questions, nationwide-injunction cases, and federal-action review.

Who Bears the Burden and How

The Supreme Court loses ordinary review pathways that would be reassigned to the D.C. Circuit or multi-circuit panel. Regional appellate courts lose final review authority in cases assigned to the D.C. Circuit panel structure. Plaintiff attorneys seeking nationwide injunctions must litigate transfer and consolidation in the D.C. Circuit. D.C. Circuit administrators must convene the annual 13-judge multi-circuit panel and assign covered cases.

Key Provisions

  • Amends direct appeals, certiorari, certified-question, and district-court final-decision review to route through the D.C. Circuit.
  • Creates a 13-judge multi-circuit D.C. Circuit panel with annual random circuit representation.
  • Requires a 70 percent panel supermajority to affirm invalidation of Acts of Congress or federal actions.
  • Requires transfer of nationwide-injunction cases and published written explanations for emergency reversals.

Evidence Chain:

This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.

At a Glance

What This Bill Does

Redirects major Supreme Court review pathways to the D.C. Circuit and a 13-judge multi-circuit D.C. panel, restricts nationwide injunction cases, requires 70 percent panel support for invalidating federal law or action, and requires written explanations for emergency reversals.

Key Policy Areas

Judiciary, Federal Courts, Separation of Powers

Primary Purpose

Redirects major Supreme Court review pathways to the D.C. Circuit and a 13-judge multi-circuit D.C. panel, restricts nationwide injunction cases, requires 70 percent panel support for invalidating federal law or action, and requires written explanations for emergency reversals.

Policy Domains

Judiciary Federal Courts Separation of Powers

Resolution provisions

Identified Gains
  • Federal agency defendants
  • Congressional committees
  • Emergency appeal litigants
  • D.C. Circuit court clerks
Model: codex-gpt-5 | Version: bill_summary_v2 | Source: ih
Congressional committees: , , ,
D.C. Circuit court clerks: , , ,
Federal agency defendants: , , ,
Emergency appeal litigants: , , ,
Identified Costs
  • Supreme Court clerks
  • Regional appellate courts
  • Plaintiff attorneys
  • D.C. Circuit administrators
Model: codex-gpt-5 | Version: bill_summary_v2 | Source: ih
Plaintiff attorneys: , , ,
Supreme Court clerks: , , ,
Regional appellate courts: , , ,
D.C. Circuit administrators: , , ,

Legislative Progress

In Committee
Introduced Committee Passed
Jun 25, 2025

Mr. Casten introduced the following bill; which was referred to …

Jun 25, 2025

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Jun 25, 2025

Introduced in House

Stakeholder Effects

cui bono?

How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.

Judiciary
18 mentions across 6 clauses
?18 uncertain

D.C. Circuit court clerks, Regional appellate courts, Supreme Court clerks

Government
12 mentions across 6 clauses
+6 positive ?6 uncertain

Congressional committees, Federal agency defendants

Professional Services
6 mentions across 6 clauses
?6 uncertain

Plaintiff attorneys

6/13
sections analyzed
Full impact breakdown

Bill Structure & Actor Mappings

Who is "The Secretary" in each section?

Domains
Judiciary Federal Courts Separation of Powers

We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.

Learn more about our methodology