An influential federal judge is proposing new restrictions on class actions that aim to broadly block government policies, judiciary advisers heard at a Wednesday gathering, which also explored transparency ideas affecting legal finance and hard-to-access court records in the red-hot realm of immigration litigation.

Word of the proposed restrictions on injunctive relief in class actions emerged at a semiannual meeting of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The committee assists the Judicial Conference of the United States with possible additions and alterations to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

During the meeting in Washington, D.C., committee members — including state and federal judges as well as attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice and the plaintiff and defense bars — also debated long-running efforts to develop a disclosure rule for third-party litigation financing. That's the term for institutional investors bankrolling lawsuits in exchange for portions of settlements or judgments.

And on another front involving transparency, panelists assessed calls for remote public access to electronic records in immigration cases. Accessing such records generally requires traveling to courthouses, but the Trump administration's sweeping deportation campaign has fueled demands to make the documents remotely available online, just like records in most federal court proceedings.

Here's a rundown of highlights from the committee's four-hour meeting.

'A Very Thoughtful Proposal' To Restrict Class Actions

Wednesday's agenda included several ideas for amending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 , which governs class actions. Committee members last year greenlighted research involving three issues: the lawfulness of financial perks for named plaintiffs serving as class representatives; court authority to scrutinize settlements before class certification; and the types of remedies judges can consider when applying Rule 23's requirement that class actions be "superior to other available methods" of resolving disputes.

An additional idea, however, is so new that it couldn't be added to the agenda, which was last updated Oct. 1. That idea came from U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, who recently finished serving as chair of the Judicial Conference's executive committee and is a top "feeder judge" whose ex-clerks frequently land U.S. Supreme Court clerkships.

"In between the period when the agenda book was published and when we had this meeting, we received a very thoughtful proposal from Judge Sutton," Andrew Bradt, a committee researcher, said at Wednesday's meeting.

The proposal, Bradt said, is related to Rule 23(b)(2), which encompasses injunctions shielding classes of individuals from challenged policies. According to Bradt, Judge Sutton's framework envisions "potentially restricting the ambit of a 23(b)(2) class action for injunctive relief to the territory of the district judge's circuit."

In addition to geographic constraints, the concept apparently would apply primarily to class actions targeting Uncle Sam's policies, as opposed to business practices that are common focal points of class cases.

"The other [three] proposals that we have are focused on ... tort class actions, whereas Judge Sutton's proposal is focused on injunctions against governmental action," Bradt, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said Wednesday.

Class actions seeking nationwide relief swiftly became a popular tool among the Trump administration's legal foes following the Supreme Court's decision last year in Trump v. CASA . The decision weakened district court powers to issue universal injunctions extending beyond the parties to a case.

Well before the CASA decision, Judge Sutton staked out a skeptical position on coast-to-coast injunctions and cited class actions as an appropriate alternative. Perhaps most notable was his 2022 concurring opinion in Arizona v. Biden , which the Supreme Court cited repeatedly in its conservative-led CASA decision.

"Universal remedies ... take the judicial power beyond its traditionally understood uses, permitting district courts to order the government to act or refrain from acting toward nonparties in the case," Judge Sutton wrote in his 2022 concurrence. "The law already has a mechanism for applying a judgment to third parties. That is the role of class actions, and Civil Rule 23 carefully lays out the procedures for permitting a district court to bind nonparties to an action."

Bradt said Wednesday that Judge Sutton has put forward "an interesting proposal" that is "going to require some research — not just on the proposal itself, but on its interaction with the [Rules] Enabling Act," which sets the parameters of judiciary rulemaking.

When the committee last year first heard about the three proposals for amending Rule 23, members aired divergent views. Bradt on Wednesday solicited fresh feedback on the three ideas as well as the proposal from Judge Sutton, but panelists mostly stayed mum.

Law360 on Wednesday requested a copy of the proposal from Judge Sutton — a nominee of former President George W. Bush — as well as committee representatives, but they didn't immediately respond.

The proposal, along with the other three ideas for amending Rule 23, is expected to come up for further discussion at the committee's next meeting in April.

Litigation Finance Stirs Up 'Very Impressive' Debate

Committee members devoted roughly 30 minutes of Wednesday's meeting to third-party litigation financing, in which investors foot the bills for promising lawsuits in exchange for cuts of any settlements or judgments. Big business has been clamoring for mandatory disclosure of funding arrangements, and the panel now has a subcommittee devoted to the topic.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, the subcommittee's new chairman, said Wednesday that his top priorities include "the definitional question of what constitutes litigation finance" as well as concrete descriptions of "the particular issues that we're trying to solve."

"We've received a lot of very impressive submissions on all sides of this issue," Judge Liman said. "It's clear to me, as the incoming chair, that the issue is an important issue, [and] that there are serious views that have been expressed on the different sides."

It's far from clear, however, whether the committee can coalesce behind a rule amendment, given the "vehement" views at play. In fact, the committee remains uncertain about which rule to amend; suggestions have included Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 , which requires litigants to disclose insurance agreements, and Rule 16 , which empowers courts to use special pretrial procedures.

A memo prepared for Wednesday's meeting outlined a decade-plus history of Capitol Hill proposals, mostly from Republican lawmakers, to regulate third-party litigation financing. It also summarized noteworthy policies, including a 2021 local rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, a first-of-its-kind North Carolina statute enacted this year and a California law set to take effect Jan. 1.

The same memo also alluded to difficulties that have stymied efforts to codify a nationwide policy. If mandatory disclosure were to cover communications with legal counsel, it "could raise very serious (opinion) work product problems," and there are still "serious questions about what the court can do with the information" gleaned from disclosure, the memo stated.

"I'm still not sure that a rule is feasible or necessary," U.S. Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff, a committee member, said Wednesday.

Despite remarks like that, supporters of a disclosure rule expressed hope after the meeting. Alex Dahl, general counsel of defense bar group Lawyers for Civil Justice, told Law360 on Wednesday that "the committee's discussion highlighted the need for disclosure of nonparties who have a financial stake in the case and the ability to make or influence litigation decisions."

Proponents of third-party litigation financing — such as the International Legal Finance Association, which includes member companies Burford Capital and Parabellum Capital LLC — say the funding "levels the playing field" for ordinary consumers suing deep-pocketed corporations. ILFA representatives couldn't immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

The committee is planning further discussion at its April meeting.

'Deluge of Immigration Cases' Prompts Transparency Push

In most federal court cases, virtually all documents can be accessed immediately via the judiciary's online PACER system. But in immigration cases, the opposite is true — virtually all documents, except for court orders, can only be accessed via computers at the courthouse where a case is pending.

The restrictions are codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 . They have sparked debate amid the Trump administration's aggressive approach to detaining and deporting individuals suspected of being unlawfully present in the U.S. That campaign has generated thousands of legal challenges, many of them focused on a new policy of no-bond detentions that the Supreme Court has agreed to review.

At Wednesday's meeting, the committee weighed objections, including protests from individual journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to the de facto seal on most immigration-related court records. Proposed amendments vary widely; they could include a wholesale elimination of Rule 5.2 restrictions for immigration cases, a tailored lifting of restrictions for habeas corpus cases, and a mechanism permitting plaintiffs to opt out of restrictions on electronic access.

Joseph Borson, an assistant director at the DOJ, said at Wednesday's meeting that the government has multiple concerns. He cited the potential for streamlining access to "information about persons that may be of interest to foreign governments." Borson also invoked the "time and burden" needed to redact vast numbers of immigration records, noting that certain information linked to claims of persecution or torture must be kept under wraps.

U.S. District Judge Rachel P. Kovner, a committee member, sounded more amenable to requests for simpler access.

"We're seeing a deluge of these immigration cases," Judge Kovner said. In those cases, she said, it usually doesn't seem as if "very sensitive information" is obviously present, or that such information "couldn't be addressed through the usual mechanisms of putting particular documents under seal."

The committee's next meeting is set for April 6 in New Orleans.

--Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.