Skip to content

JUD-011 — Interbranch Review Framework Act

A BILL

To establish within the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a generally applicable Article III cause of action and review system for substantial executive suspension, redirection, evasion, or functional nullification of enacted congressional mandates, to provide judicial capacity, expedited review, and protected funding, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Interbranch Review Framework Act.”

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.

Congress finds that—

  1. Congress may create legal duties, institutions, appropriations, limitations, and enforcement mechanisms that remain binding unless altered through constitutionally prescribed lawmaking;
  2. executive action or deliberate inaction may, in circumstances defined by law, allegedly displace, suspend, evade, or functionally nullify an enacted command before ordinary litigation can preserve meaningful relief;
  3. enforcement dependent upon a later vote, authorization, appropriation, or discretionary referral may be weakest when the same political party controls Congress and the Presidency;
  4. a prospective and neutral review pathway can preserve enacted law without making courts representatives of Congress or authorizing review of abstract political disagreement;
  5. urgency, national uniformity, political inhibition, or specialized judicial administration alone does not justify assigning a dispute to an anti-nullification forum;
  6. Congress has previously required three-judge district courts and established specialized judicial structures composed of designated Article III judges;
  7. proposal-specific judicial structures may duplicate assignment, staffing, secure-record, emergency, and appropriations machinery; and
  8. a general remedy should turn on the character of the alleged executive conduct and enacted mandate, not on whether the underlying Act anticipated the controversy or expressly opted into a later review statute; and
  9. a later Act supported by independent constitutional authority may reduce duplicative judicial infrastructure by adding a separately firewalled specialized component that shares the Division's roster and nondecisional administration without expanding the civil anti-nullification cause of action.

(b) Purposes.

The purposes of this Act are to—

  1. establish a specialized Interbranch Review Division within an existing Article III district court;
  2. create a civil cause of action based directly on substantial executive nullification of an enacted statutory mandate, without requiring an opt-in or later designating statute;
  3. apply that remedy across subject matters and to continuing or threatened violations of mandates enacted before, on, or after this Act;
  4. identify eligible plaintiffs while preserving Article III injury, causation, redressability, ripeness, and other constitutional requirements;
  5. provide neutral judicial assignment, emergency preservation, expedited fact development, consistent administration, and appellate review;
  6. prevent later partisan or institutional inaction from silently disabling a previously enacted enforcement pathway;
  7. preserve due process, lawful executive discretion, criminal-process protections, habeas corpus, final judgments, and issuing-court authority;
  8. create shared judicial capacity for the general anti-nullification remedy; and
  9. permit Congress by later Act to reuse that capacity for a separately authorized specialized function while preserving decisional, records, jurisdictional, and due-process boundaries.

SEC. 3. INTERBRANCH REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.

Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 155 the following:

“CHAPTER 156—INTERBRANCH REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

“Sec.

“2301. Definitions.

“2302. Interbranch Review Division.

“2303. General anti-nullification cause of action.

“2304. Civil Compliance panels and judicial roster.

“2305. Filing, assignment, and emergency preservation.

“2306. Expedition and fact development.

“2307. Related claims and proceedings.

“2308. Relief and compliance.

“2309. Appellate review.

“2310. Administration, rules, and public reporting.

Ҥ 2301. Definitions

“In this chapter:

“(1) Civil Compliance Division.—The term ‘Civil Compliance Division’ means the initial civil adjudicatory component of the Interbranch Review Division established under section 2302.

“(2) Covered executive conduct.—The term ‘covered executive conduct’ means action or deliberate inaction by the President, the Executive Office of the President, an executive department or agency, or an officer or employee acting under presidential or senior executive authority that allegedly suspends, redirects, evades, abolishes, or functionally nullifies a statutory mandate.

“(3) Interbranch Review Division.—The term ‘Interbranch Review Division’ means the division established within the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under section 2302.

“(4) Statutory mandate.—The term ‘statutory mandate’ means a duty, institution, office, appropriation, program, limitation, prohibition, condition, procedure, right, or other legal command enacted by Congress, without regard to its subject matter or date of enactment.

Ҥ 2302. Interbranch Review Division

“(a) Establishment.—There is established within the United States District Court for the District of Columbia an Interbranch Review Division.

“(b) Article III status.—The Interbranch Review Division is a component of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and is not a legislative court, executive agency, independent establishment, or court created under article I of the Constitution.

“(c) Initial component.—The Civil Compliance Division is the initial adjudicatory component of the Interbranch Review Division.

“(d) Later specialized components.—A later Act of Congress supported by constitutional authority independent of section 2303 may expressly add a specialized component that uses the judicial roster or nondecisional administration of the Interbranch Review Division. The later Act shall separately define the component's authority, proceedings, decisional personnel, records, review, and funding and shall provide safeguards appropriate to the function conferred.

“(e) Limited authority.—The Interbranch Review Division may exercise only the jurisdiction and authority conferred by the Constitution and this chapter or expressly added by a later Act of Congress.

“(f) No inherent expansion.—The Interbranch Review Division, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia may not expand the cause of action, eligible-plaintiff categories, subject-matter threshold, available relief, or authority of a later specialized component by rule, order, certification, or administrative action.

“(g) Jurisdiction.—The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of an action under section 2303, subject to appellate review under section 2309.

Ҥ 2303. General anti-nullification cause of action

“(a) Cause of action.—A plaintiff described in subsection (c) who suffers an actual or imminently threatened concrete injury caused by covered executive conduct may bring a civil action against the responsible United States, agency, officer, or employee for declaratory, injunctive, mandamus, vacatur, preservation, compliance, release-of-funds, or other equitable relief authorized by section 2308.

“(b) Subject-matter threshold.—An action lies under this section only if the plaintiff plausibly alleges and ultimately proves that—

“(1) an Act of Congress creates or preserves a statutory mandate;

“(2) covered executive conduct suspends, redirects, evades, abolishes, or functionally nullifies that mandate;

“(3) the effect is substantial and sustained or otherwise comparable to practical repeal, rather than an isolated statutory violation, ordinary policy disagreement, or routine exercise of discretion lawfully committed to the executive branch; and

“(4) the requested relief is likely to restore or preserve compliance with the statutory mandate.

“Urgency, national uniformity, political inhibition, or potential benefit from specialized judicial administration does not independently satisfy this subsection.

“(c) Eligible plaintiffs.—Subject to subsection (d), an action may be brought by—

“(1) a State, Indian Tribe, territory, possession, or political subdivision whose administration, funds, legal obligations, statutory role, or sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests are concretely impaired;

“(2) a recipient, beneficiary, regulated person, applicant, contractor, grantee, institution, association, or other person whose statutory right, payment, proceeding, legal obligation, or protected interest is concretely impaired;

“(3) a federal board, commission, entity, member, or officer suffering a concrete institutional or legal injury, to the extent suit is consistent with the Constitution and Congress may lawfully confer litigating capacity;

“(4) either House of Congress, a committee, or another congressional plaintiff when authorized by resolution or statute and when the plaintiff alleges a concrete institutional injury judicially cognizable under article III; or

“(5) the Comptroller General or an Inspector General when another provision of law authorizes enforcement of a concrete access, reporting, preservation, or compliance duty and article III is satisfied.

“(d) Article III and justiciability preserved.—This section does not eliminate injury in fact, causation, redressability, ripeness, mootness, political-question, reviewability, or another constitutional or jurisdictional requirement. It does not convert disagreement about unenacted congressional preferences into a case or controversy.

“(e) Waiver of sovereign immunity.—An action under this section seeking relief other than money damages shall not be dismissed or relief denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States. A mandatory or injunctive decree shall identify by name or official title each Federal officer responsible for compliance and shall bind the officer's successors in office to the extent permitted by law. Nothing in this subsection creates a claim for money damages or waives immunity from damages.

“(f) Defendants and presidential relief.—The plaintiff may name the United States, an agency, and each officer or employee responsible for ordering, implementing, or maintaining the covered executive conduct. Relief against the President personally may be granted only when the Constitution permits and equivalent effective relief against subordinate officials is unavailable.

“(g) No opt-in or subject-matter designation required.—This section applies without regard to the subject matter or enactment date of the statutory mandate. The underlying Act need not cite this chapter, designate a proceeding, create a special cause of action, or otherwise opt into the Interbranch Review Division.

“(h) Relationship to other laws.—

“(1) An Act enacted before, on, or after the effective date of this chapter may supplement this chapter with additional rights, plaintiffs, standards, remedies, procedures, or a more specific forum.

“(2) An Act enacted before the effective date of this chapter does not displace the cause of action or procedure under this chapter merely because that Act supplies a specific enforcement or review scheme. Such an earlier Act displaces this chapter only to the extent that it expressly makes a remedy or forum exclusive for the relevant claim or subject matter.

“(3) An Act enacted after the effective date of this chapter may displace this chapter by expressly making another remedy or forum exclusive for the relevant claim or subject matter or by expressly superseding an identified provision of this chapter.

“(i) Existing mandates and continuing violations.—This section authorizes prospective and compliance-preserving relief concerning covered executive conduct occurring after its effective date and conduct begun earlier that continues or produces an ongoing nullifying effect on that date. It applies to a statutory mandate enacted before, on, or after this chapter, but does not reopen a final judgment or create retroactive civil or criminal liability for completed conduct.

“(j) Trigger notices.—An officer, Inspector General, the Comptroller General, a State, a covered institution, or another person may file a notice or certification identifying an alleged anti-nullification condition. The notice may support preservation and expedition but does not itself create standing, commence an action, or authorize judicial relief without a plaintiff and a case or controversy under this section.

Ҥ 2304. Civil Compliance panels and judicial roster

“(a) Three-judge court.—A civil action under section 2303 shall be heard and determined by a district court of three judges convened under section 2284, except as modified by this chapter.

“(b) Composition.—Each panel shall consist of—

“(1) one judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, initially assigned at random under section 2305 and not disqualified in the proceeding;

“(2) one circuit judge in regular active service, or one senior circuit judge willing and able to serve, from a circuit other than the District of Columbia Circuit; and

“(3) one district judge in regular active service, or one senior district judge willing and able to serve, from a district outside the District of Columbia and from a circuit different from the circuit of the judge selected under paragraph (2).

“(c) National roster.—

“(1) Not later than 180 days after enactment of the Interbranch Review Framework Act, the Judicial Conference shall establish a public, neutral, and random procedure for selection of a national roster containing not fewer than 6 circuit judges and 12 district judges eligible for designation under subsection (b).

“(2) Judges shall be drawn from geographically diverse circuits for staggered 5-year terms. A judge may serve one additional term. A senior judge may be selected only if the judge is willing and able to undertake the duties.

“(3) Selection may not consider political affiliation, the identity or political party of the appointing President, anticipated outcomes, or views concerning a pending or expected proceeding.

“(4) A judge may be placed on the roster only after obtaining any consent required by section 295 or, for a senior judge, after satisfying the willingness-and-ability requirement of section 294. The Chief Justice shall designate each judge selected under the random procedure to the roster for the applicable term and shall assign each selected senior judge to perform duties under this chapter. A designation or assignment under this paragraph is authorized directly by this section, does not depend on a request or certificate under section 291, 292, or 294, and is subject to sections 294 through 296 except to the extent that a provision of those sections is inconsistent with this section.

“(d) Random panel assignment.—Notwithstanding sections 137 and 2284(b)(1), the clerk shall assign the two roster judges to each panel through the public random procedure prescribed under section 2310. A case-specific assignment under this subsection is authorized directly by this section and does not require a further designation, request, or certificate by the Chief Justice, a circuit justice, a chief circuit judge, or a chief district judge. No officer may select a judge for a particular proceeding based on anticipated outcome, appointing authority, political affiliation, or views concerning the controversy.

“(e) Recusal and replacement.—Sections 144 and 455 apply. A disqualified judge shall be replaced promptly through the same random procedure.

“(f) No appellate participation.—A judge who serves on a Civil Compliance panel may not participate in appellate review of that proceeding.

“(g) Ordinary judicial office preserved.—Service under this section does not create a new judicial office, diminish tenure or compensation, or prevent a designated judge from performing other judicial duties.

Ҥ 2305. Filing, assignment, and emergency preservation

“(a) Filing and initial assignment.—A civil action under section 2303 shall be filed with the clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and initially assigned at random to a judge of that court under section 137 and applicable local rules.

“(b) Assignment deadline.—The clerk shall initiate panel assignment—

“(1) as soon as practicable and not later than 24 hours after a filing requesting emergency relief; or

“(2) not later than 3 business days after any other action under section 2303 is filed.

“(c) Single-judge authority.—Before the panel is constituted, the D.D.C. judge initially assigned may—

“(1) determine whether the complaint invokes section 2303 and, if so, whether the claim is so wholly insubstantial or frivolous that it fails to present a federal question; if the complaint does not invoke section 2303, the judge shall direct reassignment under ordinary procedures, and if the asserted section 2303 claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous, the judge may dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; but the judge may not dismiss for ordinary failure to state a claim, resolve the merits of section 2303(b), or enter judgment on the merits;

“(2) issue a temporary restraining or preservation order not exceeding 7 days, upon specific facts shown by affidavit or verified complaint and the findings required by section 2284(b)(3), when necessary to prevent imminent and irreparable loss of records, funds, property, personnel status, adjudicatory capacity, program capacity, or effective judicial relief;

“(3) rule on routine, nondispositive administrative matters; and

“(4) take any action permitted to a single judge under section 2284.

“(d) Extension.—The three-judge panel may extend, modify, or dissolve a temporary preservation order after notice and an opportunity to be heard. An extension requires written findings concerning likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, and the public interest.

“(e) Public process.—Filings, hearings, assignments, and orders shall be public except to the extent sealing or closure is required by law and supported by particularized findings. The court shall use the least restrictive lawful means of protecting classified, privileged, grand-jury, law-enforcement-sensitive, personal, proprietary, or otherwise protected information.

Ҥ 2306. Expedition and fact development

“(a) Priority.—An action under section 2303 shall receive priority under section 1657 over nonemergency civil matters to the maximum extent consistent with due process and the needs of criminal, habeas, election, and other statutorily prioritized proceedings.

“(b) Interim relief.—The panel shall—

“(1) establish an expedited briefing schedule for a request for temporary or preliminary relief;

“(2) complete any necessary hearing not later than 10 days after the request is fully briefed; and

“(3) issue a decision not later than 10 days after the hearing or completion of briefing if no hearing is required.

“(c) Limited extension of interim deadlines.—The panel may extend a deadline under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(3) only to protect due process or lawfully protected information, complete indispensable fact development, or address another extraordinary circumstance. The panel shall state the reason and the shortest feasible revised date in a public order, subject to lawful sealing.

“(d) Merits target.—The panel should issue a final merits decision not later than 90 days after the record is ready for decision. If the panel cannot meet that target, it shall issue a public order stating the reason and a revised schedule, subject to lawful sealing.

“(e) Fact development.—Consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the panel may—

“(1) require verified factual submissions, administrative records, privilege logs, continuity assessments, compliance plans, or status reports;

“(2) permit targeted expedited discovery;

“(3) refer matters to a magistrate judge as authorized by law or appoint a master only as permitted by rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and section 2284;

“(4) take testimony and resolve disputed jurisdictional or remedial facts; and

“(5) preserve evidence, records, funds, systems, offices, property, or legally required operational capacity pending decision.

“(f) Protected information.—The panel shall use established statutory and rule-based procedures for protected information. This chapter does not create access to information otherwise protected from the parties or the court by the Constitution or federal law.

“(g) Due process.—Expedition may not eliminate reasonable notice, an opportunity to be heard, impartial adjudication, or another process constitutionally required in the proceeding.

“(a) Related anti-nullification actions.—The Civil Compliance Division may consolidate or coordinate actions under section 2303 presenting common questions of law or fact when doing so promotes consistent and efficient adjudication without prejudicing a party or defeating an emergency deadline.

“(b) Other claims.—A panel may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367 only when independently available and appropriate. It shall sever or remand a claim when centralized adjudication would improperly displace habeas venue, criminal procedure, state-court responsibility, local fact development, or a specialized review route.

“(c) No automatic removal or transfer.—This chapter does not automatically remove or transfer an action pending in another court. Transfer requires statutory authority, constitutional jurisdiction, and a determination that transfer will not prejudice a party or defeat timely relief.

“(d) Pending actions.—A proceeding pending when this chapter takes effect shall remain in its original forum unless transfer is independently authorized, all parties consent, and the receiving panel determines that transfer is lawful and just.

“(e) Later specialized proceedings.—A civil action under section 2303 may not be consolidated with an appointment, investigative, removal, access, or completion proceeding created by a later Act. Common background facts do not authorize cross-assignment of judges or decisional employees, disclosure of protected records, transfer of jurisdiction, or use of a finding for a purpose not authorized by law.

Ҥ 2308. Relief and compliance

“(a) Authorized relief.—Subject to subsection (c), a panel may grant declaratory or injunctive relief; mandamus for a clear nondiscretionary duty; vacatur of covered executive conduct; preservation or release of budget authority when an enacted appropriation or program command requires it; restoration of lawful access to records, systems, property, offices, or pending proceedings; use of an existing lawful succession or continuity mechanism; compliance reporting; and other equitable relief necessary to restore or preserve compliance with the statutory mandate. Fees and costs remain governed by otherwise applicable law.

“(b) Interim relief.—A panel may preserve meaningful judicial review and prevent irreparable statutory injury, including loss of records, systems, funds, property, adjudicatory capacity, program capacity, or a legally protected proceeding. Interim relief may not award money damages or compel a remedy beyond the authority supplied by this chapter and the underlying statutory mandate.

“(c) Relief limits.—Final relief shall be no broader than necessary to restore or preserve compliance with the enacted mandate. A panel may not select among policy choices, enforcement priorities, appointments, or implementation methods lawfully committed to executive discretion; compel nomination or appointment of a particular person; recreate removal protection forbidden by the Constitution; require an historical staffing level without a statutory basis; assume continuing management of an agency; or award money damages.

“(d) Compliance administration.—The panel may require identification of responsible officials, sworn compliance plans, periodic reports, and preservation measures and may appoint a master only when permitted by rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law.

“(e) Presidential relief.—This chapter does not expand the authority of a court to enter coercive relief directly against the President. Equivalent effective relief against subordinate officers, agencies, recipients of federal authority, or other proper defendants shall be preferred when available.

“(f) Scope of injunctive relief.—Injunctive relief shall be no broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing. This chapter does not authorize relief for a nonparty solely to obtain universal compliance, but this subsection does not prohibit relief properly entered for a certified class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or relief whose effect on nonparties is necessary to remedy an indivisible injury of a plaintiff with standing.

Ҥ 2309. Appellate review

“(a) Final decisions.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction under section 1291 of an appeal from a final decision of a Civil Compliance panel.

“(b) Section 1253.—Section 1253 does not apply to an action under this chapter.

“(c) Interlocutory review.—An order granting, denying, modifying, or dissolving temporary or preliminary relief may be appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit under section 1292(a)(1). The appellate court may permit other interlocutory review under section 1292 or another applicable law. The time for filing a notice of appeal is governed by section 2107 and rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

“(d) Expedition and stays.—The District of Columbia Circuit shall expedite an appeal under this chapter and any motion for stay. The filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the order under review. Except when moving first in the district court would be impracticable, a party seeking a stay or other relief pending appeal shall first move before the Civil Compliance panel.

“(e) Record and decision.—The district-court clerk shall transmit the record promptly. If decision is not issued within 60 days after completion of appellate briefing and argument, the appellate court shall issue a public order stating the reason and a revised schedule, subject to lawful sealing.

“(f) Supreme Court review.—Review by writ of certiorari remains available.

Ҥ 2310. Administration, rules, and public reporting

“(a) Clerk.—The clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall serve as clerk of the Interbranch Review Division and may appoint an administrator and necessary deputies, staff attorneys, technical personnel, records personnel, and support staff, subject to appropriations and judiciary personnel law.

“(b) Administrative office.—The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall provide facilities, technology, cybersecurity, secure-information capability, procurement, financial administration, and other support reasonably necessary to operate the Division.

“(c) Implementing rules and procedures.—

“(1) Not later than 180 days after enactment of the Interbranch Review Framework Act, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after consultation with the Judicial Conference and the Director of the Administrative Office, shall prescribe any conforming local rules necessary to implement this chapter under section 2071, including rules governing emergency filing, related-case identification, consolidation, intervention, recusal procedure, filing and service, appellate expedition, stays, public access, sealing, and redaction. A court may prescribe an interim rule for immediate need under section 2071(e) but shall promptly provide public notice and an opportunity for comment.

“(2) Within the same period, the Judicial Conference shall prescribe public administrative procedures, within its lawful authority, governing—

“(A) neutral roster and panel assignment;

“(B) after-hours administrative access;

“(C) random replacement assignments following recusal;

“(D) secure records and access controls;

“(E) electronic-filing and service support;

“(F) expenditure controls and audits;

“(G) separate decisional staffing, records, access controls, and assignment safeguards for a specialized component added by a later Act; and

“(H) other nondispositive administration consistent with this chapter.

“(d) Limits on rules and procedures.—A rule or administrative procedure under this section may not expand jurisdiction, eligible-plaintiff categories, the subject-matter threshold, or available relief; direct a case outcome; or impair a constitutional or statutory right.

“(e) Public information.—The clerk shall maintain a public page containing filing instructions, public rules and administrative orders, panel assignments, docket links, aggregate disposition data by statutory subject matter, and information concerning emergency and protected-record procedures. Administrative classification or omission does not create or eliminate jurisdiction; section 2303 controls.”.

SEC. 4. CONFORMING TABLE AMENDMENT.

The table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 155 the following:

“156. Interbranch Review Proceedings ........................................ 2301”.

SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS.

(a) First judgeship.

Effective 180 days after the date of enactment, the item relating to the District of Columbia in the table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking “15” and inserting “16”.

(b) Contingent second judgeship.

  1. Not earlier than 18 months and not later than 30 months after the effective date of chapter 156 of title 28, United States Code, the Judicial Conference shall publish a determination whether a second additional district judgeship for the District of Columbia is reasonably necessary to administer that chapter without materially impairing the court's ordinary civil, criminal, habeas, election, and other prioritized work.
  2. The determination shall consider actual and projected filings under chapter 156; weighted and unweighted ordinary caseload; use of the national roster; clerk, security, technology, facilities, and staff capacity; interlocutory and final appellate workload; vacancies; and whether nonjudgeship resources can adequately address the demonstrated burden.
  3. If the Judicial Conference certifies that the additional judgeship is reasonably necessary, then, effective 90 days after publication of the certification, the item relating to the District of Columbia in the table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by striking “16” and inserting “17”. If the Judicial Conference does not make that certification, the second judgeship is not authorized.

(c) Ordinary appointment and duties.

Judgeships authorized by this section shall be filled in the manner prescribed by article II of the Constitution and chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code. A judge appointed to a judgeship authorized by this section is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and is not appointed exclusively to the Interbranch Review Division.

(d) No case-specific selection.

Nothing in this section authorizes the President, Senate, Judicial Conference, chief judge, or any other officer to select a judge for a particular action under section 2303.

SEC. 6. APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Startup appropriation.

Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to the Judiciary $10,000,000 for planning, facilities, technology, cybersecurity, secure records, personnel recruitment, rules implementation, and other startup costs of the Interbranch Review Division, to remain available until expended.

(b) Operating appropriations.

Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to the Judiciary $15,000,000 for each of the first 7 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment to carry out this Act and chapter 156 of title 28, United States Code.

(c) Administration and protection.

Amounts appropriated under this section—

  1. shall be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
  2. shall be in addition to other amounts available to the Judiciary;
  3. may not be transferred to an executive agency;
  4. may not be withheld, conditioned, deferred, or impounded by an executive officer except as expressly authorized by a later Act of Congress; and
  5. shall remain available for obligation for 2 fiscal years after the fiscal year for which appropriated, except that subsection (a) remains available until expended.

(d) Nonjudicial implementation costs excluded.

Amounts under this section may support judicial and administrative operations under this Act but may not be used for agency restoration, grant or benefit payments, program administration, independent investigations, or another nonjudicial implementation cost unless a later Act expressly authorizes that use.

(e) Audit.

The Comptroller General shall audit expenditures under this section. An audit may examine legality, internal controls, procurement, security compliance, and financial administration but may not examine judicial deliberations or direct the merits of a proceeding.

(f) Later years.

For fiscal years after the period described in subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to continue the Interbranch Review Division. Not later than 18 months before that period ends, the Judicial Conference shall submit to Congress a public funding recommendation based on actual workload and expenditures.

SEC. 7. CAPACITY AND IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW.

(a) Annual report.

The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall submit an annual public report to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate describing—

  1. filings by statutory subject matter and asserted form of covered executive conduct;
  2. dispositions, median decision times, and pending matters;
  3. aggregate roster participation, recusals, and replacement assignments without disclosing protected deliberative information;
  4. staffing, facilities, technology, security, and special-master use;
  5. obligations and expenditures by category;
  6. use of emergency-preservation and compliance procedures; and
  7. recommendations for administrative or legislative improvement.

(b) Three-year capacity review.

Not later than 3 years after the effective date of chapter 156 of title 28, United States Code, the Judicial Conference shall evaluate whether the additional D.D.C. judgeship or judgeships, national roster, D.C. Circuit appellate capacity, clerk staffing, secure-information systems, and appropriations are adequate. The report may recommend additional capacity but may not itself create judgeships, expand jurisdiction, or redirect appropriations.

(c) Protected information.

Reports under this section shall protect sealed records, classified information, grand-jury material, judicial deliberations, personal information, and information whose disclosure would impair an active investigation or fair trial.

SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW; RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) General subject-matter application and procedural supersession.

Chapter 156 of title 28, United States Code, applies to every action satisfying section 2303 without an opt-in designation. It supersedes a conflicting generally applicable venue, panel-assignment, timing, consolidation, or appellate provision for such an action to the extent necessary to apply this Act.

(b) Other statutes.

Another Act may supplement this Act. An earlier Act does not displace the cause of action or procedure under chapter 156 merely because it provides a specific enforcement or review scheme; it displaces chapter 156 only to the extent that it expressly makes a remedy or forum exclusive for the relevant claim or subject matter. A later Act may displace chapter 156 by expressly making another remedy or forum exclusive for the relevant claim or subject matter or by expressly superseding an identified provision of chapter 156.

(c) Rights and remedies preserved.

Nothing in this Act limits—

  1. review otherwise available under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code;
  2. mandamus, declaratory, injunctive, habeas, contempt, sanctions, or other judicial authority otherwise available;
  3. the authority of a court to enforce its own orders;
  4. a criminal defendant's constitutional or statutory rights;
  5. a final judgment;
  6. lawful congressional oversight, appropriations, impeachment, or legislative authority; or
  7. a substantive right or remedy established by other law.

(d) No legislative veto or abstract review.

Nothing in this Act creates a legislative veto, authorizes an advisory opinion, makes a court an agent of Congress, or permits adjudication of abstract congressional will apart from enacted law.

(e) No executive expansion or control.

No executive officer may narrow the subject-matter coverage of section 2303, select a judge, direct a decision, condition judicial funding, or prevent a filing authorized by this Act.

(f) Constitutional requirements preserved.

Nothing in this Act alters the requirements of articles I, II, or III of the Constitution, the Appointments Clause, due process, sovereign immunity, the separation of powers, or another constitutional limitation.

SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITION.

(a) Planning and rulemaking.

Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and this section take effect on enactment. The Judicial Conference, Administrative Office, D.D.C., D.C. Circuit, and D.D.C. clerk may begin planning, recruitment, procurement, roster selection, and rulemaking immediately.

(b) Judicial operations.

Chapter 156 of title 28, United States Code, takes effect 180 days after enactment.

(c) General cause of action.

The cause of action under section 2303 and the Interbranch Review Division's authority to hear it take effect when chapter 156 takes effect. No other Act or designation is required.

(d) Ongoing conduct and older mandates.

Section 2303 applies to covered executive conduct occurring after its effective date and to a continuing disablement, withholding, suspension, redirection, evasion, or failure to perform that remains ongoing on that date, without regard to when the statutory mandate was enacted.

(e) Pending proceedings.

An action filed before chapter 156 takes effect shall remain in its original forum unless transfer is independently authorized, all parties consent, and the receiving court determines that transfer is lawful and just. A plaintiff may file a new action under section 2303 concerning conduct or a nullifying effect that remains ongoing after the effective date, subject to preclusion and other applicable law.

(f) No reopening of final judgments.

This Act does not reopen a final judgment or create retroactive substantive liability for completed conduct.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person, statute, proceeding, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and its application to other persons, statutes, proceedings, and circumstances shall not be affected.

If the specialized three-judge structure or Interbranch Review Division is held invalid or legally unavailable, the cause of action under section 2303 shall remain operative in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before a single district judge under ordinary civil procedure, with ordinary appellate review, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Budgetary Impact Statement

The working draft directly appropriates $10 million for startup and $15 million annually for 7 fiscal years, for $115 million in scheduled budget authority, and it authorizes one additional D.D.C. district judgeship at launch plus a second only upon Judicial Conference workload certification. Judicial compensation would add mandatory direct spending beyond the stated appropriation; administration, facilities, staffing, security, and technology would use the direct appropriation rather than await annual discretionary funding. Those base amounts support JUD-011's civil framework and shared nondecisional capacity. They do not by themselves fund independent investigative counsel or another later specialized function; a later Act must expressly authorize use and provide any necessary incremental appropriation. All figures are provisional planning amounts requiring CBO, AOUSC, appropriations, PAYGO, and legislative-counsel review.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Drafting Notes

  • The draft uses a new chapter 156 in part VI of title 28 because the number and section range between existing chapters 155 and 157 appear available. Legislative counsel must confirm codification and conforming-table mechanics against the enacted Code at introduction.
  • The legal institution is an Article III division within D.D.C., not a freestanding Article I tribunal. “Tribunal” may remain descriptive project language, but the bill uses “Division” to preserve the legal form.
  • Section 2303 creates a generally applicable but narrow anti-nullification cause of action. Coverage turns on the enacted mandate, covered executive conduct, substantial-and-sustained practical-repeal threshold, concrete injury, and restorative relief—not on statutory subject matter or an opt-in designation.
  • The cause of action reaches prospective or continuing violations of older statutory mandates. It does not make every statutory violation actionable: isolated noncompliance, ordinary policy disagreement, lawful discretion, abstract congressional preferences, and claims lacking Article III standing remain outside.
  • REG-001, FUND-001, and other issue-specific bills are separate legislative alternatives, not designating statutes or prerequisites to JUD-011. Congress may enact JUD-011 as the general remedy or enact an independently operative alternative without JUD-011.
  • The Civil Compliance panel adapts the three-judge-court model in 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and the cross-circuit designation authorities in 28 U.S.C. §§ 291–296. The Chief Justice designates randomly selected judges to the term roster; the clerk then performs the mechanical random case assignment expressly authorized by the Act. Active-judge consent, senior-judge willingness and ability, public assignment safeguards, and assigned-judge powers remain preserved where consistent. Legislative counsel and the Judiciary must still test the departures from sections 137, 2284(b)(1), and 291–296.
  • The default appeal goes to the D.C. Circuit. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1253 otherwise supplies direct Supreme Court review of certain three-judge-court injunction decisions, section 2309 expressly displaces that route while preserving certiorari review under section 1254.
  • DOJ-007 depends on distinct constitutional-amendment authority and does not arise under section 2303. After ratification, its preferred implementing Act may nevertheless add a separately firewalled Investigative Counsel component that reuses this Division's roster and nondecisional infrastructure. The standalone DOJ-007 Act remains an independent alternative if Congress rejects JUD-011.
  • The bill deliberately does not place JUD-001 contempt proceedings in the Division. The court that issued an order should ordinarily retain enforcement authority.
  • The first judgeship increases general D.D.C. capacity rather than creating a proposal-specific office. A second seat becomes effective only after a public Judicial Conference certification based on actual and projected workload, nonjudgeship alternatives, and ordinary court responsibilities. The national panel roster and contingent second seat reduce, but do not eliminate, court-packing and appointing-cohort concerns.
  • The direct multi-year appropriation is designed to prevent annual executive or partisan starvation of the framework. The scheduled appropriation totals $115 million; judicial compensation adds mandatory direct spending. The structure creates PAYGO and adoption friction that should be reviewed against an authorization-only or hybrid alternative.
  • The initial D.D.C. judge is assigned at random under section 137 and applicable local rules. That judge may reassign a complaint that does not invoke section 2303 and may reject only an asserted section 2303 claim so wholly insubstantial or frivolous that it does not present a federal question; ordinary failure-to-state-a-claim and merits questions belong to the three-judge panel. Emergency preservation tracks section 2284(b)(3), and masters remain governed by rule 53 and section 2284.
  • Final appeals proceed under section 1291, injunction appeals under section 1292(a)(1), and ordinary section 2107 and appellate-rule filing periods. Expedition begins when an appeal is filed, and a stay request ordinarily begins before the panel.
  • D.D.C. and the D.C. Circuit own conforming court rules under section 2071; the Judicial Conference owns only the national administrative procedures within its lawful authority. Interim emergency rules remain subject to prompt notice and comment.
  • CBO's H.R. 1702 estimate supplies a judgeship-cost comparator: approximately $280,000 in 2025 compensation per new district judge, approximately $760,000 in typical first-year administrative costs, and approximately $700,000 in average annual operating costs once established. It does not score JUD-011's broader staff and systems.

Source Notes

  • The publication check checked the operative text against 28 U.S.C. §§ 133, 137, 144, 291, 292, 294–296, 455, 1253, 1254, 1291, 1292, 1361, 1367, 1404, 1406, 1631, 1651, 1657, 2071, 2072, 2107, and 2284; the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; D.D.C. and D.C. Circuit rules; and Judicial Conference assignment materials. Legislative counsel must repeat the current-Code and rules check at introduction and test each express departure.
  • Structural comparators should include the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and 50 U.S.C. § 1803, while clearly distinguishing their jurisdiction, secrecy, transfer, and application models.
  • Constitutional review should address Article III case-or-controversy requirements, congressional standing, statutory standing, sovereign immunity, judicial assignments, nonadjudicatory judicial functions, appointments, due process, direct review, and the presidential-relief limits reflected in Mississippi v. Johnson, Franklin v. Massachusetts, and Severino v. Biden.
  • The internal current-source review found no later public merits disposition in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought or Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition that supersedes the cited June 2026 limited-remand order or September 2025 stay. Both matters, and any later Supreme Court or D.C. Circuit decision affecting reviewability, statutory preclusion, removal, agency dismantling, appropriations enforcement, or remedial scope, must be refreshed again immediately before circulation.
  • Fiscal review should obtain AOUSC estimates for judges, chambers, clerk staff, facilities, cybersecurity, secure records, special masters, appellate workload, and after-hours emergency operations, followed by CBO review of direct spending and PAYGO effects.
  • Future issue pages may identify JUD-011 as the preferred remedy only after an internal remedy-fit review concludes that the issue satisfies section 2303(b). Any issue-specific alternative must be independently operable and must not rely on JUD-011 or another proposal.