Senators Tuberville, Grassley Introduce Bill to Limit Universal Injunctions in Federal Courts
Would require parties to pursue class action lawsuits instead
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has joined Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republican lawmakers in introducing the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 (JRCA). The bill seeks to curtail the power of federal courts by restricting injunctions to only the parties directly involved in a case, effectively ending the practice of universal injunctions.
The legislation would require parties seeking nationwide relief to pursue class action lawsuits instead. Additionally, it would amend the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act to ensure court rulings apply solely to the plaintiffs and defendants in a case. The bill also allows immediate appeals for temporary restraining orders (TROs), which are often used to halt government actions.
Senator Tuberville voiced strong support for the measure, criticizing what he described as judicial overreach. “President Trump has exposed the fact that our courts are full of woke activist judges who think they were elected President. But they were not,” Tuberville said. “More than 77 million Americans voted for President Trump and his agenda – and liberal judges should not be allowed to issue injunctions on policies they do not agree with. We need our justice system to focus on upholding the Constitution, not pushing an agenda. If judges have a problem with that, they can run for political office.”
Senator Grassley echoed these concerns, emphasizing the constitutional limitations of the judicial branch. “For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we’ve increasingly seen sweeping orders from individual district judges that dictate national policy. Our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, but the Constitution limits judges to exercising power over ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’” Grassley said. “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.”
The bill has garnered support from multiple Republican senators, including John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Thom Tillis (R-NC), among others.
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits courts to adjudicating specific “cases” or “controversies.” However, in recent years, it has become increasingly common for federal judges to issue universal injunctions—rulings that halt policies nationwide, even for individuals who are not directly involved in a lawsuit. Legal scholars note that no record of such orders exists before 1963, and their use has surged in the past decade.
The issue has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum. In 2020, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas argued that “by their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.” Justice Elena Kagan also weighed in, stating in 2022, “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.”
While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the issue, it has not definitively ruled on the constitutionality of universal injunctions. Under Article III, Congress holds the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, a responsibility the JRCA aims to assert.
The bill also seeks to clarify the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs how federal agencies create and enforce regulations. Currently, some courts interpret the APA as allowing a single district judge to vacate agency actions for the entire country. The JRCA would limit such decisions to only those directly affected by the case.
Supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to prevent judicial overreach and ensure that major policy decisions remain with elected officials rather than individual judges. However, critics are expected to push back, warning that the bill could weaken judicial oversight and limit legal recourse for individuals challenging government actions.
The Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 is now set to be debated in Congress, where it is likely to spark significant legal and political debate.
