Federal Policy Judicial Relief and Expedited Review Act of 2026
Three-judge courts for relief that reaches non-parties, and fixed deadlines for review
- Type
- Legislative discussion draft with a cover memorandum (bottom line, the problem, constitutional basis, comparison with five other proposals, and the questions staff will ask), the bill text, a section-by-section analysis, the relationship to existing proposals and scholarship, a litigation, practical and political risk assessment, and appendices recording the changes from version 1, the review rounds and citation audits, what the version 2.6 substitute changed, and the open items. Not official U.S. government analysis and not the product of the Office of the Legislative Counsel.
- The problem
- Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) narrowed universal injunctions but left open universal stays and vacatur under 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706, class relief, and “complete relief” for State plaintiffs, and it set no limit on how long interim relief may last. The Congressional Research Service counted 34 cases in which a nationwide injunction had issued as of the day CASA was decided; 14 of those orders were still in force on 27 June 2026. A single district judge can still suspend a national policy for everyone, for a year or more, before any court decides whether it is lawful.
- The other risk
- When an unlawful policy stays in force, the damage is often permanent. The IEEPA tariffs were collected for more than a year before the Supreme Court held them unlawful in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026). The draft therefore presumes no policy valid; it changes who may suspend a policy for everyone, and how fast that decision is reviewed.
- Neutrality
- Both parties have lost to a single judge in a chosen courthouse, and both will again. The Act takes effect 20 January 2029, so neither party knows which President it will constrain first.
- What a sponsor can trade
- Sections 10 (national-security information) and 11 (random assignment) are severable from the core, and Sec. 9 (security) can be dropped without touching the design. The within-circuit draw in Sec. 4(c)(3) takes the panel from the filing circuit; it is simpler, gives circuit choice back to the plaintiff, and already governs if the cross-circuit rules are not in force by 20 January 2029.
- Cost
- No new judgeships. Sec. 13(a) requires the Judicial Conference to report, within 180 days of enactment, the workload and appropriations the Act causes and how many judgeships, if any, it would take to administer; creating them is left to a later Act. Sec. 14 authorizes appropriations only for the random-selection and audit systems.
- Revision history
- Version 2.7, 30 October 2026: Sec. 4(c)(2) revised to give the Act its own authority for cross-circuit designation, with the lending circuit’s consent deemed given after two business days, resolving the designation problem found when the version 2.6 text was verified; the revised paragraph was checked in a further round the same day. Version 2.6, 30 October 2026: the bill text of version 2.5 was replaced by the proposed substitute of 26 October 2026 and the analysis rewritten to match. The substitute removes expedited Supreme Court review under a new 28 U.S.C. § 1261 and the 30-day referral, removes the 69 judgeships, and changed how panel judges are designated; the full list is in the document. The new bill text was verified against primary sources on 30 October 2026; the earlier review rounds and citation audit covered version 2.5 and are kept as the record of that version. Version 2.5, 12 October 2026, superseded version 1 and was posted to sanctir.com 25 October 2026.
Three-judge courts (Secs. 3–4). Relief that reaches persons who are not parties may be granted only by a three-judge district court. A random draw across circuits selects the panel and the Chief Justice must designate its judges within 3 business days, under authority the Act itself supplies notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. §§ 291–292, with the lending circuit’s consent under § 295 deemed given after 2 business days; if a cross-circuit designation cannot be completed within 10 business days, the filing circuit draws a panel from within itself. The judge who has the case keeps full authority over relief for the parties and may enter a 14-day order for non-parties on written findings of specific, irreparable harm.
Standards and the APA (Secs. 5–6). Relief requires the ordinary requirements for the form of relief sought, including Winter, with written findings and tailoring. The Act reaches universal stays under § 705 and final vacatur under § 706 that extends to non-parties, and only the panel may certify a class against a covered action.
Review and schedule (Secs. 7–8). An order granting, denying, modifying or dissolving interim non-party relief is appealable as of right to the court of appeals, filed within 14 days and decided within 45; an appeal from final judgment is decided within 90. The Supreme Court keeps its ordinary certiorari jurisdiction, on its own timetable. The panel sets a schedule aimed at final judgment within 180 days and reconsiders interim relief at 180 days and every 90 days after.
Supporting provisions (Secs. 9–11, 13–14). Written findings on security; protective orders for national-security information, with optional model procedures; district-wide random case assignment made law under 28 U.S.C. § 137; a Judicial Conference report on workload and judgeships; and appropriations for the selection and audit systems.
Savings provisions (Sec. 12). Habeas corpus, including habeas classes, individual removal relief, relief for the named parties, and existing statutory limits on relief are untouched.
It does not tell any court how to rule. Version 1’s presumption of validity, automatic stay, mandatory bonds and Attorney General certification are gone; each invited a constitutional challenge and added little. Policy made by executive order without statutory backing, which only legislation fixes, and anything before 20 January 2029 are outside the bill.
Read the draft
What this draft does not establish
This is a discussion draft prepared for staff deliberation. It is not a bill introduced in Congress, it is not the product of the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and it is not official U.S. government analysis. Bracketed text marks policy choices left open for a sponsoring office.
The verifications of 30 October 2026 left open items, listed in the document. Version 2.7 resolves the designation-authority problem; what remains is narrower: the first sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 295 and the filing requirement in that section are not named in the notwithstanding clause, three parts of § 2284(b) are not reached by the Act’s priority rule (including who acts as the single judge once the panel sits), and no precedent was found for either the three-day designation deadline or consent by silence. The risk ratings were made against version 2.5 and, except the designation row, have not been re-rated. No legislative counsel has reviewed the bill text.
The legal analysis describes how the provisions are designed to withstand challenge; it does not predict how any court or legislature would act. Nothing in this draft is legal advice or a substitute for counsel.
Suggested citation
George, Collin B. Federal Policy Judicial Relief and Expedited Review Act of 2026: Discussion Draft. Legislative discussion draft LD-2026-05, version 2.7. Sanctir LLC, 30 October 2026.