End Judge Shopping Act

Bill Number

H.R. 2795

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Law

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-10-09T03:26:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "End Judge Shopping Act" (H.R. 2795) aims to prevent the practice known as "judge shopping," where plaintiffs file lawsuits in specific courts to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable nationwide injunction (a court order that applies across the entire United States, blocking enforcement of a law or policy everywhere). It seeks to ensure that such broad relief is only sought in courts with multiple judges, promoting a more balanced judicial process.

Key Provisions

• New Venue Requirement: Adds a new section (1414) to Chapter 87 of Title 28 of the United States Code, stating that any civil lawsuit seeking an order enforceable in every district and division of the U.S. (i.e., a nationwide injunction) must be filed only in a judicial division that has at least two active judges assigned to it.
• Short Title: The bill is officially titled the "End Judge Shopping Act."
• Clerical Update: Updates the table of sections in the relevant chapter of the U.S. Code to include the new provision.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Prior to this bill, plaintiffs could file suits seeking nationwide injunctions in any U.S. District Court, including those with single-judge divisions, allowing for potentially quicker or more targeted rulings from individual judges.
• This legislation introduces a mandatory venue restriction, limiting such cases to multi-judge divisions and effectively prohibiting single-judge divisions from issuing nationwide injunctions. It does not alter the ability to seek injunctions but changes where they can be pursued.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Could make it easier for federal agencies to enforce policies nationwide by reducing the risk of immediate, broad blocks from isolated courts, potentially streamlining policy implementation.
• On Citizens: Litigants challenging federal actions (e.g., on immigration, environmental regulations, or civil rights) may face delays or need to file in busier, multi-judge courts, affecting access to quick relief; however, it might lead to more consistent national rulings.
• On Courts: Shifts workload to larger districts, possibly reducing forum-shopping but increasing caseloads in certain areas.
• International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect U.S. foreign policy enforcement if lawsuits involve international agreements.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Litigants and Advocacy Groups: Plaintiffs (e.g., individuals, organizations, or states) seeking to halt federal policies, who may need to adjust filing strategies.
• Federal Government and Agencies: Benefits from potentially fewer disruptive injunctions, aiding consistent enforcement.
• U.S. District Courts and Judges: Alters jurisdictional rules, limiting single-judge authority in high-stakes cases and emphasizing multi-judge venues.
• Congress and Policymakers: Addresses concerns about judicial overreach in blocking legislation.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Reinforces venue rules under federal law (Title 28 U.S.C.), potentially reducing inconsistent rulings across districts but raising questions about whether it unduly restricts access to courts for certain plaintiffs.
• Constitutional Implications: May intersect with Article III of the U.S. Constitution (judicial power) by limiting how courts exercise equitable remedies like injunctions; critics might argue it affects due process or equal protection, though it does not eliminate the right to seek relief.
• Political Implications: Targets a perceived partisan issue where "judge shopping" has been used to challenge executive actions, promoting judicial neutrality without altering core separation of powers; it could influence how future administrations defend policies in court.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-04-09: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-09: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• End Judge Shopping Act — issued 2025-04-09 — PDF (2 pages)