28 U.S.C. § 2403
Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 401 (Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 1, 50 Stat. 751).
Word “action” was added before “suit or proceeding”, in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Since this section applies to all Federal courts, the word “suit” was not required to be deleted by such rule.
“Court of the United States” is defined in section 451 of this title. Direct appeal from decisions invalidating Acts of Congress is provided by section 1252 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
1976—Pub. L. 94–381, § 5(b), inserted “or a State” after “United States” in section catchline.
Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 94–381, § 5(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Amendment by Pub. L. 94–381 not applicable to any action commenced on or before
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 883
cases (155 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless & Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless & Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell (2006)
“The State first argues that it has a statutory right to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403 (b), which provides “[i]n any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the…”
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (1997)
“He also moved to intervene on behalf of the State, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403 (b), 10 in order to contest on appeal the District Court’s declaration that a provision of Arizona’s Constitution violated the Federal Constitution.”
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
“[7] *7 The State of Tennessee, which had intervened to defend the statute, see 28 U. S. C. § 2403 (b), appealed to this Court.”
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
“Maine, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403 (b), intervened to defend the validity of its statute, arguing that the ban legitimately protects the State's fisheries from parasites and nonnative species that might be included in shipments of live baitfish.”
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
“Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403 (a), the United States intervened in the District Court to defend RLUIPA's constitutionality.”
In Re Handy (2000)
“44 is based, see 28 U.S.C. § 2403 ; Fed.R.App.P. 44, our self-imposed rule is not jurisdictional so as to prevent the adjudication of a constitutional issue in the absence of official notice.”
Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego (2014)
“The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.”
ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. (2018)
“The court must, under 28 U.S.C. § 2403 , certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.”
International Paper Company v. The Inhabitants of the Town of Jay, Maine, Appeal of State of Maine (1989)
“On July 15, 1988, Maine filed a motion with the district court to intervene as a party defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403 (b) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
United States v. Cox (2018)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 2403 (b). So far in this case, the district court had neither ruled nor been asked to rule on the SAPA's constitutionality.”
Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)
“The Court of Appeals accepted the appeal, and the United States, also a petitioner, intervened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403 in order to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute.”
Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (2019)
“R. Civ. P. 5.1 (permitting the state attorney general to intervene when a party files a paper "drawing into question the constitutionality" of a state statute).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) — 3 cases
Hanley v. Stewart (1998)
— 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) — 4 cases
In Re Martinez (1989)
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.