# Plain Language Summary: Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act

This bill fundamentally restructures how federal courts handle major cases by dramatically reducing the Supreme Court's power and creating a new system where a rotating panel of judges from across the country would handle cases involving federal law and government actions. Currently, the Supreme Court has broad authority to decide which cases it wants to hear and can overturn lower court decisions. Under this bill, most cases that go to federal appeals courts would stop there instead of going to the Supreme Court. The bill also creates a special 13-judge panel made up of one randomly selected judge from each of the 12 regional appeals courts plus one from Washington D.C., and this panel would hear cases involving the federal government, constitutional questions, and federal law interpretation.

The bill makes several other significant changes to how courts operate. It restricts "nationwide injunctions"—court orders that stop a government policy everywhere in the country—by requiring these cases to be handled by the D.C. appeals court instead of individual judges in local courts. It also requires judges to write detailed explanations whenever they overturn a lower court's decision, and these explanations must be published online. Additionally, when the rotating panel of judges decides that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, at least 70 percent of the panel (10 out of 13 judges) must agree, making it much harder to strike down laws.

The practical effect of this bill would be to shift significant judicial power away from the Supreme Court and toward a broader group of federal judges. This could mean that controversial Supreme Court decisions become less likely, since cases wouldn't reach that level as easily. However, it could also create more inconsistency in how federal law is applied across the country, since different appeals courts might interpret laws differently without Supreme Court oversight. The bill essentially reflects a belief that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and that decisions about federal law should be made by a more diverse group of judges rather than nine justices in Washington.

Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act

Casten, Sean

Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act This bill revises the federal statutory framework that confers appellate jurisdiction to courts. Among the changes, the bill grants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit&#8212;not the Supreme Court&#8212;jurisdiction over <ul type="disc"> <li>direct appeals from final decisions of three-judge panels, and </li> <li>appeals by certiorari and certified questions. </li> </ul> The bill also establishes a 13-judge multi-circuit panel and grants it jurisdiction over any case in which the United States or a federal agency is a party, or a case concerning constitutional interpretation, statutory interpretation of federal law, or the function or actions of an executive order. Finally, the bill specifies that whenever an action before a federal court seeks injunctive relief barring the enforcement of a federal law, statute, regulation, or order against a nonparty, the court shall, upon a motion of a party, transfer the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.