HB2274, titled the Court Shopping Deterrence Act, would amend title 28 of the U.S. Code to create a direct appeal path to the U.S. Supreme Court whenever a federal district court grants a nationwide injunction. The bill defines a nationwide injunction as an order that restrains enforcement of a federal statute, regulation, order, or similar authority against non-parties, unless those non-parties are represented in a proper representative action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In practical terms, the bill would change appellate procedure by bypassing the usual lower appellate courts for this category of injunctions and sending those appeals directly to the Supreme Court. It also adds a new section to chapter 155 of title 28 and makes a conforming clerical amendment to the table of sections. The measure is framed as a response to concerns about forum shopping and the use of broad injunctions that affect people beyond the parties to a case.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would alter federal judicial procedure by limiting the normal route of appeal for nationwide injunctions and giving the Supreme Court immediate appellate jurisdiction over those orders. This would affect federal courts, litigants challenging federal laws or regulations, and parties seeking or opposing broad injunctive relief. The bill would not change substantive federal law, but it would reshape how quickly and by whom nationwide injunctions are reviewed.
Sentiment
The available context shows a neutral procedural bill with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The bill’s title and structure suggest support for curbing perceived strategic litigation and broad district-court injunctions, but the absence of transcripts or vote history means there is no documented public sentiment in the record provided. Overall, the measure appears to be presented as a judicial-administration reform rather than a policy change on the underlying subject matter of any particular federal statute or regulation.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns nationwide injunctions themselves: supporters would view them as an invitation to court shopping and inconsistent with limited judicial relief, while opponents may argue they are sometimes necessary to prevent unlawful federal action from harming many people at once. Another likely dispute is whether the Supreme Court should be required to hear these appeals directly, which could increase the Court’s workload and reduce the role of the federal courts of appeals. No specific member positions or committee objections are included in the provided record.
No Rogue Rulings Act or NORRAThis bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions.Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.
To Amend The Rules Of The Supreme Court And Court Of Appeals Of The State Of Arkansas; And To Amend A Rule Of The Supreme Court And Court Of Appeals Under The Authority Granted By The Arkansas Constitution.