28 U.S.C. § 137

Division of business among district judges

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—The business of a court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the court.

The chief judge of the district court shall be responsible for the observance of such rules and orders, and shall divide the business and assign the cases so far as such rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.

If the district judges in any district are unable to agree upon the adoption of rules or orders for that purpose the judicial council of the circuit shall make the necessary orders.

(b)Random Assignment of Rate Court Proceedings.—(1)In general.—(A)Definition.—In this paragraph, the term “performing rights society” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17.(B)Determination of license fee.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in the case of any performing rights society subject to a consent decree, any application for the determination of a license fee for the public performance of music in accordance with the applicable consent decree shall be made in the district court with jurisdiction over that consent decree and randomly assigned to a judge of that district court according to the rules of that court for the division of business among district judges, provided that any such application shall not be assigned to—(i) a judge to whom continuing jurisdiction over any performing rights society for any performing rights society consent decree is assigned or has previously been assigned; or(ii) a judge to whom another proceeding concerning an application for the determination of a reasonable license fee is assigned at the time of the filing of the application.(C)Exception.—Subparagraph (B) does not apply to an application to determine reasonable license fees made by individual proprietors under section 513 of title 17.(2)Rule of construction.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall modify the rights of any party to a consent decree or to a proceeding to determine reasonable license fees, to make an application for the construction of any provision of the applicable consent decree. Such application shall be referred to the judge to whom continuing jurisdiction over the applicable consent decree is currently assigned. If any such application is made in connection with a rate proceeding, such rate proceeding shall be stayed until the final determination of the construction application. Disputes in connection with a rate proceeding about whether a licensee is similarly situated to another licensee shall not be subject to referral to the judge with continuing jurisdiction over the applicable consent decree.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 897; Pub. L. 115–264, title I, § 104, Oct. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 3726.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 27 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 23, 36 Stat. 1090).

Section was rewritten and the practice simplified. It provided for division of business and assignment of cases by agreement of judges and, in case of inability to agree, that the senior circuit judge of the circuit should make necessary orders.

The revised section is consistent with section 332 of this title, that the last paragraph of which requires the judicial council to make all necessary orders for the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within the circuit.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–264 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesPilot Program in Certain District Courts

Pub. L. 111–349, Jan. 4, 2011, § 1, 124 Stat. 3674, provided that:“(a)Establishment.—“(1)In general.—There is established a program, in each of the United States district courts designated under subsection (b), under which—“(A) those district judges of that district court who request to hear cases under which 1 or more issues arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection are required to be decided, are designated by the chief judge of the court to hear those cases;“(B) cases described in subparagraph (A) are randomly assigned to the judges of the district court, regardless of whether the judges are designated under subparagraph (A);“(C) a judge not designated under subparagraph (A) to whom a case is assigned under subparagraph (B) may decline to accept the case; and“(D) a case declined under subparagraph (C) is randomly reassigned to 1 of those judges of the court designated under subparagraph (A).“(2)Senior judges.—Senior judges of a district court may be designated under paragraph (1)(A) if at least 1 judge of the court in regular active service is also so designated.“(3)Right to transfer cases preserved.—This section shall not be construed to limit the ability of a judge to request the reassignment of or otherwise transfer a case to which the judge is assigned under this section, in accordance with otherwise applicable rules of the court.“(b)Designation.—“(1)In general.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 4, 2011], the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not less than 6 United States district courts, in at least 3 different judicial circuits, in which the program established under subsection (a) will be carried out.“(2)Criteria for designations.—“(A)In general.—The Director shall make designations under paragraph (1) from—“(i) the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases were filed in the most recent calendar year that has ended; or“(ii) the district courts that have adopted, or certified to the Director the intention to adopt, local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases.“(B)Selection of courts.—From amongst the district courts that satisfy the criteria for designation under this subsection, the Director shall select—“(i) 3 district courts that each have at least 10 district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 3 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A); and“(ii) 3 district courts that each have fewer than 10 district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 2 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A).“(c)Duration.—The program established under subsection (a) shall terminate 10 years after the end of the 6-month period described in subsection (b).“(d)Applicability.—The program established under subsection (a) shall apply in a district court designated under subsection (b) only to cases commenced on or after the date of such designation.“(e)Reports to Congress.—“(1)In general.—At the times specified in paragraph (2), the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the chief judge of each of the district courts designated under subsection (b) and the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the pilot program established under subsection (a). The report shall include—“(A) an analysis of the extent to which the program has succeeded in developing expertise in patent and plant variety protection cases among the district judges of the district courts so designated;“(B) an analysis of the extent to which the program has improved the efficiency of the courts involved by reason of such expertise;“(C) with respect to patent cases handled by the judges designated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) and judges not so designated, a comparison between the 2 groups of judges with respect to—“(i) the rate of reversal by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, of such cases on the issues of claim construction and substantive patent law; and“(ii) the period of time elapsed from the date on which a case is filed to the date on which trial begins or summary judgment is entered;“(D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants select certain of the judicial districts designated under subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome; and“(E) an analysis of whether the pilot program should be extended to other district courts, or should be made permanent and apply to all district courts.“(2)Timetable for reports.—The times referred to in paragraph (1) are—“(A) not later than the date that is 5 years and 3 months after the end of the 6-month period described in subsection (b); and“(B) not later than 5 years after the date described in subparagraph (A).“(3)Periodic reports.—The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the chief judge of each of the district courts designated under subsection (b) and the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, shall keep the committees referred to in paragraph (1) informed, on a periodic basis while the pilot program is in effect, with respect to the matters referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1).”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 107 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Chandler v. Jud. Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74 (1970).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chandler v. Jud. Council of the Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74 (1970). · cites it 24× “His petition seeks resolution of questions of first impression concerning, inter *76 alia, the scope and constitutionality of the powers of the Judicial Councils under 28 U. S. C. §§ 137 and 332. [1] The Judicial Council of each federal circuit is, under the present statute,…”

In Re John H. McBryde U.S. Dist. Judge, 117 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “Both orders cited 28 U.S.C. § 137 as authority to reassign the eases.”

United States v. Pearson, Eric, 203 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “See 28 U.S.C § 137 (“The business of a court having more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the court.”

United States v. Phillips, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Utah 1999). · cites it 5× “This random ease assignment system, one expressly approved by the judges of this court in accordance -with the statutory command found in 28 U.S.C. § 137 , has been well understood by both the bench and the bar to “prevent judge shopping by any party, thereby enhancing public…”

United States v. Figueroa-Arenas, 292 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “2 Noting that the statute authorizing district courts to promulgate local rules, 28 U.S.C. § 137 , requires that the chief judge respect these rules and assign the cases as provided therein, the motion papers asserted that an assignment system cannot deviate from that…”

Elaine Marshall v. J. Marshall, Iii, 721 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2013). “In the Central District of California, General Order 08-05 § 1.2 (2008), which applies equally to bankruptcy courts, directs the Clerk to assign cases to judges in the district randomly.”

Deitz v. Ford, 760 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014). “In addition, there is no dispute that this action was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 137 (b)(2)(I). In this appeal, however, Deitz challenges the constitutional authority of the bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment against him in the adversary proceeding, relying upon…”

United States v. Roque Diaz, 189 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Diaz’s challenge to the district court’s authority to adopt the procedure is undermined by 28 U.S.C. § 137 , which vests the district court with broad discretion in assigning court business to individual judges.”

United States v. Roger Lardrell McCullough, 851 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 28 U.S.C. § 137 (enabling district courts to *1200 rearrange their business); United States v.”

Guo-Le Huang v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 453 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2006). “1977) (in banc), notwithstanding the normal authority of a district court to divide the business of the court among its judges, see 28 U.S.C. § 137 . In this case, in the event that the BIA, upon remand, determines that further consideration by an IJ is warranted, the matter…”

Alston v. Admin. Offices of Delaware Courts, 663 F. App'x 105 (3rd Cir. 2016). “And while Alston has expressed displeasure that his federal actions are typically assigned to Judge Robinson, we have previously observed that 28 U.S.C. § 137 does not provide litigants with “a right to have [their] case heard by a particular judge,” a “right to any particular…”

Rodriguez v. Eastman Kodak Co., 88 F. App'x 470 (2d Cir. 2004). “We note that 28 U.S.C. § 137 grants district courts wide discretion to set rules for the division of cases and the management of court business.”

Show all 107 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 137(a) — 1 case

Gilley v. Stabin (D. Or. 2024).

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.