28 U.S.C. § 2201

Creation of remedy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 964; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 111, 63 Stat. 105; Aug. 28, 1954, ch. 1033, 68 Stat. 890; Pub. L. 85–508, § 12(p), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 349; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIII, § 1306(b)(8), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1719; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 249, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2672; Pub. L. 98–417, title I, § 106, Sept. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 1597; Pub. L. 100–449, title IV, § 402(c), Sept. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 1884; Pub. L. 100–670, title I, § 107(b), Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3984; Pub. L. 103–182, title IV, § 414(b), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 111–148, title VII, § 7002(c)(2), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 816; Pub. L. 116–113, title IV, § 423(b), Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 66.)Amendment of Section

For termination of amendment by section 501(c) of Pub. L. 100–449, see Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment note below.

Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 400 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 274d, as added June 14, 1934, ch. 512, 48 Stat. 955; Aug. 30, 1935, ch. 829, § 405, 49 Stat. 1027).

This section is based on the first paragraph of section 400 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Other provisions of such section are incorporated in section 2202 of this title.

While this section does not exclude declaratory judgments with respect to State taxes, such suits will not ordinarily be entertained in the courts of the United States where State law makes provision for payment under protest and recovery back or otherwise affords adequate remedy in the State courts. See Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, La. 1943, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 319 U.S. 293, 87 L.Ed. 1407. See also Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, Conn. 1944, 65 S.Ct. 152, 323 U.S. 101, 89 L.Ed. 101. See also section 1341 of this title forbidding district courts to restrain enforcements of State taxes where State courts afford plain, speedy, and efficient remedy.

Changes were made in phraseology.

1949 Act

Section corrects a typographical error in section 2201 of title 28, U.S.C.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 7428 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Section 516A(f)(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 1516a(f)(9) of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Sections 505 and 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in subsec. (b), are classified to sections 355 and 360b, respectively, of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 262 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Amendments

2020—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–113 substituted “section 516A(f)(9)” for “section 516A(f)(10)”.

2010—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–148 inserted “, or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act” before period.

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–182 substituted “merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930),” for “Canadian merchandise,”.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–449 temporarily substituted “1986,” for “1954 or” and inserted “or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of Canadian merchandise, as determined by the administering authority,” after “title 11,”. See Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–670 inserted “or 512” after “505”.

1984—Pub. L. 98–417 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 inserted reference to proceedings under section 505 or 1146 of title 11.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 substituted “taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954” for “taxes”.

1958—Pub. L. 85–508 struck out provisions which related to District Court for Territory of Alaska. See section 81A of this title which establishes a United States District Court for the State of Alaska.

1954—Act Aug. 28, 1954, extended provisions to Alaska.

1949—Act May 24, 1949, corrected spelling of “or” in second sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2020 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–113 effective on the date on which the USMCA enters into force (July 1, 2020), but not applicable to certain determinations under section 1516a of Title 19, Customs Duties, or binational panel reviews under NAFTA, see section 432 of Pub. L. 116–113, set out as a note under section 1516a of Title 19.

Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–182 effective on the date the North American Free Trade Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States [Jan. 1, 1994], but not applicable to any final determination described in section 1516a(a)(1)(B) or (2)(B)(i), (ii), or (iii) of Title 19, Customs Duties, notice of which is published in the Federal Register before such date, or to a determination described in section 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) of Title 19, notice of which is received by the Government of Canada or Mexico before such date, or to any binational panel review under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, or to any extraordinary challenge arising out of any such review that was commenced before such date, see section 416 of Pub. L. 103–182, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under former section 3431 of Title 19.

Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–449 effective on date United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement enters into force (Jan. 1, 1989), and to cease to have effect on date Agreement ceases to be in force, see section 501(a), (c) of Pub. L. 100–449, set out in a note under section 2112 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(c) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–455 applicable with respect to pleadings filed with the United States Tax Court, the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, or the United States Court of Claims more than 6 months after Oct. 4, 1976, but only with respect to determinations (or requests for determinations) made after Jan. 1, 1976, see section 1306(c) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7428 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

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.

Effect of Termination of USMCA Country Status

For provisions relating to effect of termination of USMCA country status on sections 401 to 432 of Pub. L. 116–113, see section 4601 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Amount in Controversy

Jurisdictional amount in diversity of citizenship cases, see section 1332 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15,285 cases (3,636 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007) scotus · cites it 8× “We must decide whether Article III's limitation of federal courts' jurisdiction to "Cases" and "Controversies," reflected in the "actual controversy" requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (a), requires a patent licensee, to terminate or be in breach of…”
Admiral Ins. Co. v. Niagara Transformer Corp. (2023) ca2 · cites it 7× “actual controversy” within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act (the “DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (a). In reaching this jurisdictional ruling, the district court principally relied on (1) the fact that Monsanto has not commenced or explicitly threatened formal litigation…”
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (2016) ca3 · cites it 4× “In particular, on December 28, 2012, Auto-Owners filed the present declaratory judgment action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 , against Stevens & Ricci and Hymed, seeking a declaration that the Policy did not provide coverage for Hymed’s claims in the Underlying Action and that…”
Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court (2009) ca6 · cites it 12× “Before the Michigan Supreme Court released its opinion, Fieger and co-plaintiff Richard Steinberg, Fieger's attorney, filed suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (a), [2] in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.”
Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers (1998) scotus · cites it 11× “The Union, however, asserts that the outcome is altered by the fact that it seeks relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 . [2] It argues that in order to determine whether § 301(a) jurisdiction lies over the declaratory-judgment aspect of its suit,…”
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. (2008) cafc · cites it 8× “This is an action brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 , 2202, and the provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act establishing civil actions for patent certainty, 21 U.”
Scottsdale Insurance v. Flowers (2008) ca6 · cites it 4× “Burke argues that the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (2000), and erred in its determination that Norman Flowers (“Flowers”), a therapist at the Morton Center, was not…”
Moher v. United States (2012) miwd · cites it 16× “In addition to his tort claims under the FTCA, Moher demands a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 . Moher seeks a declaratory judgment that the border patrol officers violated 8 U.”
Perez v. Ledesma (1971) scotus · cites it 8× “Their complaint sought a judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 , declaring the state statute and parish ordinance unconstitutional; an injunction against pending and future prosecutions under either enactment; and an injunction directing the…”
Steffel v. Thompson (1974) scotus · cites it 6× “III of the Constitution and the express terms of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 . [9] *459 Unlike three of the appellees in Younger v.”
Rusk v. Cort (1962) scotus · cites it 11× “955 , as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 2201 , provides: "In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any…”
COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers (2008) dcd · cites it 7× “In relevant part, the Declaratory Judgment Act provides: In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) — 43 cases
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.