28 U.S.C. § 1657

Priority of civil actions

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

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each court of the United States shall determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration of any action brought under chapter 153 or section 1826 of this title, any action for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, or any other action if good cause therefor is shown. For purposes of this subsection, “good cause” is shown if a right under the Constitution of the United States or a Federal Statute (including rights under section 552 of title 5) would be maintained in a factual context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit.(b) The Judicial Conference of the United States may modify the rules adopted by the courts to determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined, in order to establish consistency among the judicial circuits.(Added Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 401(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3356.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 403, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3361, provided that: “The amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle A (§§ 401–403) of title IV of Pub. L. 98–620, enacting this section, amending sections 596, 636, 1364, 2284, and 2349 of this title, section 687 of Title 2, The Congress, section 552 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, sections 8, 136d, 136h, 136n, 136w, 194, 1366, 1600, and 1601 of Title 7, Agriculture, section 1464 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, sections 18a, 21, 45, 57a–1, 78k–1, 687a, 687c, 719h, 1415, 2003, and 2622 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, sections 1463a, 1910, 3117, and 3168 of Title 16, Conservation, sections 1964 and 1966 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, sections 346a and 348 of Title 21, Food and Drugs, section 618 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, section 640d–3 of Title 25, Indians, sections 3310, 6110, 6363, 7609, 9010, and 9011 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, sections 110, 160, 660, and 1303 of Title 29, Labor, section 816 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining, section 2022 [now 4302] of Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits, section 3628 of Title 39, Postal Service, sections 300j–9, 504, 6508, and 8514 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, sections 1062, 1349, 1652, and 2011 of Title 43, Public Lands, sections 355, 745, 1018, and 1205 of Title 45, Railroads, section 402 of Title 47, Telecommunications, section 2305 of former Title 49, Transportation, sections 792a and 3811 of Title 50, War and National Defense, section 1984 of the former Appendix to Title 50, and sections 30109 and 30110 of Title 52, Voting and Elections, repealing sections 1296 and 2647 of this title, section 28 of Title 15, and section 3614 of Title 42, and amending provisions set out as a note under section 2304 of Title 10, Armed Forces] shall not apply to cases pending on the date of the enactment of this subtitle [Nov. 8, 1984].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 67 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 109 F. Supp. 3d 67 (D.D.C. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 109 F. Supp. 3d 67 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 3× “at 6. In their motion to expedite, Plaintiffs argue that their age and the fact that some of them are in poor health constitute “good cause” for expediting the proceedings pursuant to 28 U.”

Amer Bioscience Inc v. Thompson, Tommy G., 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “Since under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a) the granting or denying ot a preliminary injunction is the basis for an expedited appeal the district courts should be careful — in such a case as this — not to do so.”

Ontario Forest Indus. Assoc v. United States, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 2× “, 157 F.R.D. at 486. In elucidating the “good cause standard,” the legislative history of section 1657(a) provides that “good cause” should be found: “[1] in a case in which failure to expedite would result in mootness or deprive the relief requested of much of its value, [2] in…”

Brennan Ctr. for Just. At N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. U.S. Dep't of State, 300 F. Supp. 3d 540 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 2× “26) ¶ 9) On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff moved to expedite this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 . (Mot. (Dkt. No. 22) ) Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant "to produce the [requested] documents (or all segregable non-exempt portions thereof) within 21 days[,]" and…”

Casad v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 301 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2002). “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that the deliberative process exemption applied.”

Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F. Supp. 2d 575 (N.D. Tex. 2001). “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 , petitioner, Ysidro Castillo, Jr.”

Freedom Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 157 F.R.D. 485 (C.D. Cal. 1994). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a). The Court also notes plaintiffs arguments concerning the importance of the within action.”

Bomont Indus. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “While this statutory provision was repealed by Congress in Public Law 98-620, effective November 8, 1984, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 this Court of International Trade continues to grant such actions precedence.”

Headley v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 141 F.R.D. 362 (D. Mass. 1991). “For example, the inherent power recognized under the All Writs Act [ 28 U.S.C. § 1657 ]. . For example, Rules 11, 26(e), and 37, F.”

In Re Sealed Case, 825 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “…however, that appeals from any orders under the recalcitrant witness statute must be given expedited treatment. 28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a) (Supp. Ill 1985).”

Essex v. Kobach, 874 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Kan. 2012). “# 9), in which he pointed out a series of electoral deadlines, including a filing deadline of June 11, 2012 for candidates for Congress, the state legislature and the Kansas Board of Education.”

Roy Post v. Jerry D. Gilmore, 111 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 1997). “Liberty’s priority over compensation is why 28 U.S.C. § 1657 specifies that requests for collateral relief go to the head of the queue, a sequence the district court here reversed.”

Show all 67 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) — 2 cases

In Re: Ryan Thomas Bechard (D.P.R. 2019).

MMSP, LLC v. Stovall (D. Nev. 2025).

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.