Legislative Attempts to Limit Federal Court InjunctionsApril 1, 2025

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, the longest sitting Senator in Congress (44 years) and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, commented on recent federal court injunctions relating to Presidential executive orders.  In part, Grassley states that there is a “bipartisan problem of universal injunctions.”  He further asserted that “in most cases, an injunction should only be against something in that judicial district and just for the people that are involved in the case. And it should only be for a temporary period of time while you’re seeking an answer to the questions.” 

Grassley’s suggestion that federal court injunctions be limited geographically, rather than having nation-wide scope, raises a host of questions. 

Generally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are followed by all federal courts and apply to all parties involved in federal court litigation.  Preliminary injunctions, such as those recently issued against various executive orders, are not granted merely by asking.  Rather, the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that the public interest will be served.  Preliminary injunctions are not issued merely upon request. 

There are 94 federal judicial districts in the United States, including at least 1 in each state, as well as the District of Columbia and several territorial courts, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands.  Some states, such as Iowa, Grassley’s home state, have multiple federal court districts.

The proposal that injunctions be limited to the specific judicial district where the case is filed is unworkable.  For example, for a patent or trademark owner who sues an alleged infringer, and who satisfies the four-part test for a preliminary injunction, under Grassley’s territorial limitation, the infringer would be enjoined in only the court’s district but would be free to continue the allegedly infringing conduct in the other 93 districts.  In Iowa, the infringer would be enjoined in the Northern District, but not in the Southern District, or in any other state.  Forcing a party to file or defend lawsuits in multiple districts for the same matter is financially unreasonable, creates duplicity in the different courts, and fails to effectively achieve justice by piece-meal litigation.

Furthermore, critiques by members of Congress that the problem is “activist” judges is a misnomer.  Judges do not file lawsuits.  Lawsuits are brought by parties, and judges must decide lawsuits based on arguments presented by the parties.  So, granting of a preliminary injunction by a judge is only done after a request by the plaintiff and a response by the defendant.  Lawyers have an ethical duty to investigate the facts and the law before filing suit, to not misstate the facts or the law, and to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law.  Failure of lawyers to abide by these obligations can lead to sanctions, including disbarment. 

Admittedly, judges can make mistakes in issuing injunctions. But an enjoined party can appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which again considers the arguments presented by the parties through their lawyers, and then affirm or reverse the District Court.  For example, if the appellate court determines that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits, the injunction will be terminated. 

The U.S. federal court system has mostly worked well throughout our history.  To limit to decisions of each court only to their specific district needs much consideration before such a drastic change becomes reality. 

Kirk Hartung is a member of the Mechanical Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit  www.ipmvs.com or contact Kirk directly via email at kirk.hartung@ipmvs.com