28 U.S.C. § 2284

Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.(b) In any action required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges under subsection (a) of this section, the composition and procedure of the court shall be as follows:(1) Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge. The judges so designated, and the judge to whom the request was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.(2) If the action is against a State, or officer or agency thereof, at least five days’ notice of hearing of the action shall be given by registered or certified mail to the Governor and attorney general of the State.(3) A single judge may conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except as provided in this subsection. He may grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding, based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted, which order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the district court of three judges of an application for a preliminary injunction. A single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on the merits. Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the full court at any time before final judgment.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968; Pub. L. 86–507, § 1(19), June 11, 1960, 74 Stat. 201; Pub. L. 94–381, § 3, Aug. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 1119; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(29)(E), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 47, 47a, 380, 380a, and 792 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 210, 266, 36 Stat. 1150, 1162; Mar. 4, 1943, ch. 160, 37 Stat. 1013; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 220; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 1, 43 Stat. 938; Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 3, 50 Stat. 752; Apr. 6, 1942, ch. 210, § 3, 56 Stat. 199).

Provisions of sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction of direct appeals appear in section 1253 of this title.

Provisions of sections 47, 380, and 380a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., requiring applications for injunctions restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of Federal or State statutes or orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission to be heard and determined by three-judge district courts appear in sections 2281, 2282, and 2325 of this title.

The provision for notice to the United States attorney for the district where the action is pending was added because of the necessity of the United States attorney’s preparation for hearing as soon as possible, to expedite such a case.

Provisions of sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., respecting time for direct appeal appear in section 2101 of this title.

This revised section represents an effort to provide a uniform method of convoking three-judge district courts, and for procedure therein. It follows recommendations of a committee appointed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, composed of Circuit Judges Evan A. Evans, Kimbrough Stone, Orie L. Phillips, and Albert B. Maris.

The committee pointed out that section 380a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is the latest and “most carefully drawn expression by Congress on the subject.” Consequently, this section follows closely such section 380a and eliminates the discrepancies between sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of such title.

This section governs only the composition and procedure of three-judge district courts. The requirement that applications for injunctions be heard and determined by such courts will appear in other sections of this and other titles of the United States Code as Congress may enact from time to time. For example, see sections 2281, 2282, and 2325 of this title, sections 1213, 1215, 1255 of title 11, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Bankruptcy, section 28 of title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Commerce and Trade, and section 44 of title 49, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Transportation.

United States District Judge W. Calvin Chestnut, has referred to the provisions relating to enforcement or setting aside or orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission as unfortunately lengthy and prolix. He has urged revision to insure uniform procedure in the several classes of so-called three-judge cases.

The provision that such notice shall be given by the clerk by registered mail, and shall be complete on the mailing thereof follows, substantially, rules 4(d)(4) and 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The rules of civil procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

1984—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that the hearing had to be given precedence and held at the earliest practicable day.

1976—Pub. L. 94–381 substituted “Three-judge court; when required” for “Three-judge district court” in section catchline, and generally revised section to alter the method by which three-judge courts are composed, the procedure used by such courts, and to conform its requirements to the repeal of sections 2281 and 2282 of this title.

1960—Pub. L. 86–507 substituted “by registered mail or by certified mail by the clerk and” for “by registered mail by the clerk, and”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of this title.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–381, § 7, Aug. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 1120, provided that: “This Act [amending this section and section 2403 of this title and repealing sections 2281 and 2282 of this title] shall not apply to any action commenced on or before the date of enactment [Aug. 12, 1976].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,186 cases (87 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015).
Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015). · cites it 6× “,” 28 U. S. C. §2284 (a), and has provided that “the judge [presented with a request for a three-judge court] shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges” to serve,…”
Joseph Thomas v. Tate Reeves, 961 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “19-60133 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a). It doesn’t take 30 pages to figure out what the statute says.”
Kalson v. Paterson, 542 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “In their memorandum of law supporting the motion for judgment, Defendants noted that although Plaintiff did not request a three-judge panel, 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a) normally requires that a three-judge panel adjudicate challenges to the constitutionality of congressional districts.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975). · cites it 6× “Under 28 U. S. C. § 2284 (1) the district judge to whom the application for relief is presented, and who notifies the chief judge of the need to convene the three-judge court, "shall constitute one member of such court.”
Igartúa v. Obama, 842 F.3d 149 (1st Cir. 2016). · cites it 10× “II, The Three-Judge-Court Requirement Under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a), “[a] district court of three judges shall be convened .”
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017). · cites it 2× “See 28 U. S. C. §§2284 (a), 1253. 4 COOPER v.”
Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018). · cites it 2× “This case was assigned to a three-judge court, as required by 28 U. S. C. §2284 (a). (We will call this court “the Texas court” or simply “the District Court.”
Joseph Thomas v. Phil Bryant, 919 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a). The Voting Rights Act does not require three-judge courts for Section 2 cases (notably it does for Section 5 cases, 52 U.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007). · cites it 2× “IV); 28 U.S.C. § 2284 . WRTL alleged that BCRA's prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for "electioneering communication[s]" as defined in the Act is unconstitutional as applied to "Wedding," "Loan," and "Waiting," as well as any materially similar ads it might seek…”
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973). · cites it 4× “[9] After a single district *681 judge had denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and SCRAP's motion for a temporary restraining order, a statutory three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2284 , 2325, to decide the motion for a preliminary injunction…”
Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011). · cites it 2× “; see also 28 U. S. C. §2284 (b)(1) (stating that a three-judge court may not be convened if the district court “determines that three judges are not required”); 17A C.”
Igartua v. Trump, 868 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 12× “The only issue now before us, though, is whether our court should convene an en banc hearing to consider whether the plaintiffs' claims in this action must be heard in the first instance by a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a). Those urging that we do so premise their…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(1) — 4 cases
Eck Miller Transfer Co. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 409 (W.D. Ky. 1956).
E. Motor Express, Inc. v. United States, 103 F. Supp. 694 (S.D. Ind. 1952).
Associated Theatres, Inc. v. Henry Wade, Etc., Etc., 487 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1973).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(2) — 1 case
Bokulich v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cnty., Alabama, 298 F. Supp. 181 (N.D. Ala. 1968).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(3) — 4 cases
Laprease v. Raymours Furniture Co., 315 F. Supp. 716 (N.D.N.Y. 1970).
Nihiser v. Sendak, 405 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Ind. 1974).
Couper v. Madison Bd. of Police & Fire Commissioners, 369 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Wis. 1974).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(4) — 1 case
Bailey v. Patterson, 199 F. Supp. 595 (S.D. Miss. 1961).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(5) — 1 case
Deutsch v. Teel, 400 F. Supp. 598 (E.D. Wis. 1975).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) — 2 cases
Garcia v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 938 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. Pa. 2013).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1) — 1 case
Moseley v. Price, 300 F. Supp. 2d 389 (E.D. Va. 2004).
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.