28 U.S.C. § 1294

Circuits in which decisions reviewable

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in sections 1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295 of this title, appeals from reviewable decisions of the district and territorial courts shall be taken to the courts of appeals as follows:(1) From a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district;(2) From the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;(3) From the District Court of the Virgin Islands, to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;(4) From the District Court of Guam, to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 930; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 50(a), 65 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 85–508, § 12(g), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 86–3, § 14(c), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 10; Pub. L. 87–189, § 5, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 417; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 237, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2667; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 126, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 37.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 1141(b)(1)(2)(3) of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Internal Revenue Code, title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 225(d) and sections 645, 864, 865, 1356, and 1392 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions, and section 61 of title 7 of the Canal Zone Code (Apr. 12, 1900, ch. 191, § 35, 31 Stat. 85; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 128, 36 Stat. 1133; Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 390, § 9, 37 Stat. 566; Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §§ 42, 43, 39 Stat. 966; Mar. 3, 1917, ch. 171, § 2, 39 Stat. 1132; Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 370, § 3, 42 Stat. 1006; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, §§ 1, 13, 43 Stat. 936, 942; Feb. 26, 1926, ch. 27, § 1002, 44 Stat. 110; Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 1, 45 Stat. 54; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158; Feb. 16, 1933, ch. 91, § 3, 47 Stat. 817; May 10, 1934, ch. 277, § 519, 48 Stat. 760; Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, § 1141(b)(1)(2)(3), 53 Stat. 164).

Section consolidates the venue provisions of sections 645, 864, 1356, and 1392 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions with sections 1141(b)(1)(2)(3) to title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Internal Revenue and sections 225(d) and 865 of said title 48. Other provisions of said section 864, not incorporated in this section and sections 41 and 119 of this title, were retained in title 48. Other provisions of said section 1356 are incorporated in section 1291 of this title. Other provisions of said section 1392 were also retained in title 48.

Paragraph (3) of section 1141(b) of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted as executed. It made such subsection applicable to all decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals (Tax Court) rendered on and after May 10, 1934.

Provisions of section 225(d) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for review of the decisions of the United States Court for China were omitted. (See reviser’s note under section 411 of this title.)

Subsection (b) rephrases and rearranges the relevant provisions of section 1141(b)(1)(2)(3) of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Specific reference to the United States district courts for the districts of Hawaii, Puerto Rico and District of Columbia was omitted as unnecessary, these courts being embraced in the definition of “a district court of the United States” contained in section 451 of this title.

Administrative orders, referred to in reviser’s note under section 1291 of this title, are reviewable and enforceable in the following circuits:

Orders Reviewable

(1) Alcoholic permit orders—in the District of Columbia or in the circuit where the applicant or permittee resides or has his principal place of business;

(2) Antitrust and unfair trade orders—in the circuit where unlawful act occurred or petitioner resides or carries on business;

(3) Bridge alteration; cost orders—in the circuit where bridge is wholly or partly located;

(4) Civil aeronautics orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where petitioner resides or has his principal place of business;

(5) Commodity exchange orders—in the circuit where board of trade has its principal place of business or in circuit where petitioner for review of exclusion order carries on business;

(6) Electric and water power orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where licensee or public utility to which order relates is located or has its principal place of business;

(7) Food, drug and cosmetic orders—in the circuit where person adversely affected resides or has his principal place of business;

(8) Gas orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where company to which order relates is located or has its principal place of business;

(9) National Labor Relations Board’s final orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where unfair labor practice occurred or violator resides or transacts business;

(10) Packers cease and desist orders—in the circuit where packer has his principal place of business;

(11) Radio license decisions—in the District of Columbia;

(12) Securities and Exchange Commission orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where petitioner resides or has his principal place of business;

(13) Seed orders—in the circuit where violator resides or has his principal place of business;

(14) Wage orders—in the District of Columbia or circuit where petitioner resides or has his principal place of business;

(15) Foreign Trade Zones Board orders—in the circuit where the Zone is located;

(16) Customhouse broker licenses—in circuit where applicant or licensee resides or has his principal place of business.

Orders Enforceable

(1) Antitrust and unfair trade orders—in the circuit where unlawful act occurred or person allegedly committing unlawful act resides or carries on business;

(2) National Labor Relations Board’s final orders—in the circuit where unfair labor practice occurred or violator resides or transacts business;

(3) Seed orders—in the circuit where violator resides or has his principal place of business.

Section 61 of title 7 of the Canal Zone Code is also incorporated in sections 1291 and 1292 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

By Senate amendment, this section was renumbered “1294”, and subsec. (b), which related to the Tax Court, was eliminated. Therefore, as finally enacted, section 1141(b)(1)(2)(3) of Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code 1939, was not one of the sources of this section. The Senate amendments also eliminated section 1141 of the Internal Revenue Code 1939 from the schedule of repeals. See Senate Report No. 1559.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “Except as provided in sections 1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295 of this title, appeals from reviewable decisions” for “Appeals from reviewable decisions” in introductory provisions.

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 directed the amendment of section by substituting “district, bankruptcy, and territorial” for “district and territorial” and by adding pars. (5) and (6) relating to panels designated under section 160(a) of this title and bankruptcy courts, respectively, which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

1961—Pars. (4), (5). Pub. L. 87–189 redesignated par. (5) as (4) and repealed former par. (4) which provided that appeals from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico should be taken to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See section 1258 of this title.

1959—Pars. (4) to (6). Pub. L. 86–3 redesignated pars. (5) and (6) as (4) and (5), respectively, and repealed former par. (4) which provided that appeals from the Supreme Court of Hawaii should be taken to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See section 91 of this title and notes thereunder.

1958—Par. (2). Pub. L. 85–508 redesignated par. (3) as (2) and repealed former par. (2) which provided that appeals from the District Court for the Territory of Alaska or any division thereof should be taken to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See section 81A of this title which establishes a United States District Court for the State of Alaska.

Pars. (3) to (7). Pub. L. 85–508 redesignated pars. (4) to (7) as (3) to (6), respectively.

1951—Par. (7). Act Oct. 31, 1951, added par. (7).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–3 effective on admission of State of Hawaii into the Union, see note set out under section 91 of this title. Admission of Hawaii into the Union was accomplished Aug. 25, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 25 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as notes preceding section 491 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–508 effective Jan. 3, 1959, on admission of Alaska into the Union pursuant to Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1 and 8(c) of Pub. L. 85–508, see notes set out under section 81A of this title and preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Termination of United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone

For termination of the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone at end of the “transition period”, being the 30-month period beginning Oct. 1, 1979, and ending midnight Mar. 31, 1982, see Paragraph 5 of Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and sections 2101 and 2201 to 2203 of Pub. L. 96–70, title II, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 493, formerly classified to sections 3831 and 3841 to 3843, respectively, of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 180 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Manuel Terenkian v. The Republic of Iraq
Manuel Terenkian v. The Republic of Iraq (2012) ca9 · cites it 8× “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1294 , we have exclusive jurisdiction over such immediately appeal- able orders.”
WYE OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. Republic of Iraq (2011) ca4 · cites it 4× “3d at 156 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1); Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs.”
Frank H. Boomer, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. At & T Corporation, a New York Corporation (2002) ca7 · cites it 2× “However, we need not determine the validity of the transfer order because even if a transfer order entered after a notice of appeal is filed were valid, this court nonetheless has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1) to hear AT & T’s appeal from the district court’s order…”
Medtronic Ave, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (2001) ca3 · cites it 2× “§ 16 (a)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1). The parties in their primary briefs indicated, without substantial discussion, that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 9 U.”
Nguyen v. United States (2003) scotus · cites it 2× “"(4) From the District Court of Guam, to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”
Technosteel, Llc, Formerly Known as Alco Lite Industries, LLC v. Beers Construction Company (2001) ca4 · cites it 3× “§ 1294 (1) (West 1993), which provides that: appeals from reviewable decisions of the district and territorial courts shall be taken to the courts of appeals as follows: (1) From a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district.”
United States v. De Vaughn (2012) ca10 · cites it 2× “Our appellate jurisdiction extends to “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The territorial scope of that jurisdiction is limited to “appeals from reviewable decisions” by district courts within our circuit.”
Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. (1982) ca11 · cites it 2× “Specifically, as 28 U.S.C. § 1294 provides, “Appeals from reviewable decisions of district and territorial courts shall be taken to the courts of appeals as follows: (1) From a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district”.”
United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc., Hca, Inc. And West Paces Medical Center (2006) ca6 · cites it 2× “Although we conclude that this appeal was taken to the correct court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1294 and 1407; we hold, in accordance with 28 U.”
Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Development, Inc. (2015) ca8 · cites it 2× “JEDI filed a motion to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in the TSA, and to dismiss Unison’s complaint.”
Atari, Inc. v. Js & a Group, Inc. (1984) cafc · cites it 2× “*1439 Dealing daily with such procedural questions in all types of cases, a district court cannot and should not be asked to answer them one way when the appeal on the merits will go to the regional circuit in which the district court is located and in a different way when the…”
Industrial Wire Products, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) ca8 · cites it 3× “Therefore, the Third Circuit holds that “this case is the unusual one that finally turns on the residual jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1)[.]” Id. at 53 . Section 1294(1) states, “Except as provided in sections 1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295 .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) — 2 cases
WYE OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. Republic of Iraq (2011) ca4 “3d at 156 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1); Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs.”
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.