28 U.S.C. § 1253
Direct appeals from decisions of three-judge courts
Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 462
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Perez v. Ledesma
Perez v. Ledesma (1971)
“Under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 we have jurisdiction to consider on direct appeal only those civil actions "required.”
Norton Ex Rel. Chiles v. Mathews (1976)
“Appellant, taking the position that the three-judge court had denied his request for an order enjoining enforcement of provisions of the Act, lodged a direct appeal here pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253 . While his jurisdictional statement was pending, Jimenez v.”
Abbott v. Perez (2018)
“(a) The Texas court’s orders fall within 28 U. S. C. §1253 , which gives the Court jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of a three-judge district court “granting or denying .”
Brown v. Plata (2011)
“(1) The merits of the decision to convene are properly before this Court, which has exercised its 28 U. S. C. §1253 jurisdiction to determine the authority of a court below, including whether a three judge court was properly constituted.”
Flast v. Cohen (1968)
“From the dismissal of their complaint on that ground, appellants appealed directly to this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and we noted probable jurisdiction.”
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen (1960)
“Appellants brought the case here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and we postponed the question of our jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits.”
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)
“90, 98 (1974) (construing 28 U. S. C. § 1253 ), would be threatened if litigants could obtain an appeal through the expedient of stipulating to a particular construction of state law where state law might in fact be in harmony with the Federal Constitution.”
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
“The defendants appealed directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 . While that appeal was pending, we decided Gill v.”
Allen v. State Board of Elections (1968)
“1, 5 (1965); see 28 U. S. C. § 1253 . Appellants initially claimed that the statutes and regulations in question violated the Fifteenth Amendment.”
Lance v. Dennis (2006)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1253 . We now note jurisdiction, and address whether the Rooker-Feldman *463 doctrine bars the plaintiffs from proceeding because they were in privity with a party in Salazar.”
MTM, Inc. v. Baxley (1975)
“Appellant has brought the case directly to this Court, asserting that jurisdiction exists under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and arguing that the requirements of Younger v.”
Weinberger v. Salfi (1975)
“8, there is a question regarding the power of a court to grant an injunction under § 405 (g), we could be without jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 in Norton because the three-judge court, without power to enjoin the statute, was improperly convened under 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.