The bill seeks to limit injunctive relief to parties before the court.
Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced legislation on March 31 to prevent courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.
Dubbed the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, the law comes amid heightened scrutiny over the use of nationwide injunctions and their increasing role in halting aspects of President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The law would amend two other laws—the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act—to limit the scope of relief courts are authorized to offer under statutes.
Nationwide injunctions have been the subject of debate, including whether Article III of the Constitution authorizes their use.
That provision vests judicial power in the courts and generally gives them authority over “cases” and “controversies.”
In an op-ed, Grassley suggested that universal or nationwide injunctions exceeded that scope.
“Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving ‘cases’ and ’controversies,’ not making policy,” he said.
“The obvious solution is to limit district courts to resolving the cases only between the parties before them.”
Both parties have taken issue with the practice, and Democrats, in particular, drew attention to judge-shopping after a federal judge in Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill in 2023.
On April 2, Grassley will chair a hearing titled “Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions.”
According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years.
Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House.
The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” the practice of strategically filing lawsuits before judges whom plaintiffs view as more favorable to their cases.
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms.
In Trump’s first term, that number increased to 64, of which 59 came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party.
Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
By Sam Dorman
