HR-2795-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would add a new section to Title 28 of the U.S. Code stating that any civil action seeking an order enforceable in every federal district and division must be filed only in a division of a judicial district that has two or more active judges. It does not ban nationwide injunctions or change the standard for issuing them. It only limits where such cases can be filed, which would stop plaintiffs from picking single-judge divisions.
Who benefits
Federal government defendants (of any administration) that face suits filed in single-judge divisions chosen for a favorable judge. Parties and observers who value random or less predictable case assignment, since cases would be more likely to be spread across several judges. Litigants and states in other jurisdictions who may see fewer sweeping orders issued by one judge in a small division. Court administrators who have faced criticism over perceived forum selection.
Who is hurt
Plaintiffs, advocacy groups, and state attorneys general who currently file in single-judge divisions where they expect a receptive judge, whichever side of the political spectrum they are on. Residents of rural or smaller districts, where single-judge divisions are common, who might have to litigate in distant or larger courthouses. Larger multi-judge districts, which could see more docket pressure. Litigants who may dispute whether a requested order counts as 'enforceable in each district', creating uncertainty and added early-stage litigation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that plaintiffs now deliberately file in single-judge divisions, such as those in Texas, to guarantee a particular judge who can block federal policy nationwide. They contend that requiring two or more active judges reduces that certainty, adds a measure of random assignment, and preserves the nationwide reach of courts without eliminating any plaintiff's ability to seek relief. The Judicial Conference's 2024 guidance encouraging random assignment in such cases reflects the same concern.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would not stop forum shopping, because plaintiffs could still pick favorable multi-judge districts and the problem would only shift locations. They contend it would burden plaintiffs in rural areas with a single courthouse, could be sidestepped by drafting relief to avoid the 'each district' wording, and creates new threshold disputes. Some also argue Congress should address the scope of injunctions directly rather than regulate venue, and that the bill could slow urgent relief against unlawful government action.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under Article I and Article III to set lower federal court venue and jurisdiction, so the bill likely stands on firm ground on that point. Related debates concern the scope of equitable remedies, addressed in Trump v. CASA (2025), which limited universal injunctions, and the Judiciary Act of 1789's grant of equitable powers as discussed in Grupo Mexicano v. Alliance Bond Fund (1999). Litigants might also raise Article III and due process concerns about access to courts if venue rules were applied unevenly.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over where challenges to federal policy can be filed, while district courts would lose some flexibility in how cases are assigned. The executive branch would be a main beneficiary as defendant. Appellate courts and the Supreme Court would keep review authority over any resulting orders.