U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 11— COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

28 U.S.C. § 255

Three-judge trials

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Upon application of any party to a civil action, or upon his own initiative, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade shall designate any three judges of the court to hear and determine any civil action which the chief judge finds: (1) raises an issue of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, a proclamation of the President or an Executive order; or (2) has broad or significant implications in the administration or interpretation of the customs laws.(b) A majority of the three judges designated may hear and determine the civil action and all questions pending therein.(Added Pub. L. 91–271, title I, § 108, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 277; amended Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 501(5), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1742.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 255 was renumbered section 257 of this title.

Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–417 redesignated the Customs Court as the Court of International Trade.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1970, see section 122 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as a note under section 256 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 643 F. Supp. 626 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 643 F. Supp. 626 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). · cites it 6× “28 U.S.C. § 255 (a) (1982). These statutory provisions are implemented by Rule 77(d) of the Rules of the Court of International Trade, which provides in pertinent part: (2) Assignment to Three-Judge Panel.”
Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 1538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). · cites it 6× “This action is unassigned, and, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 255 (a)(1982) and USCIT Rule 77(d)(2), plaintiffs move before the chief judge for its assignment to a three-judge panel.”
United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 114 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 255 (1994) (authorizing the chief judge of the Court of International Trade to designate a three-judge .”
Sony Elec., Inc. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 2d 970 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 8× “28 U.S.C. § 255 (a). Rule 77(e)(2) of the Rules of this Court implement these statutory provisions in pertinent part: (2) Assignment to Three-Judge Panel.”
Barnhart v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 1387 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). · cites it 3× “RE, Chief Judge: Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 255 (1970) and Rule 77(d)(2) and (8), plaintiff moves for the assignment of this action to a three-judge panel.”
United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 907 F. Supp. 408 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 255 (a)(1) (1988) (permitting designation of three-judge CIT panels to hear and determine constitutional issues).”
Victor Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera De Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510 (1st Cir. 1991). “Plaintiffs herein have proffered no evidence indicating that Azucarera acted with knowledge or reckless disregard with respect to its obligations under FLSA. All plaintiffs have suggested is that on May 28, 1986 they informed defendant of their grievances and were denied.”
Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 4 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “” 28 U.S.C. § 255 (a). Case: 20-2157 Document: 66 Page: 56 Filed: 07/13/2021 TRANSPACIFIC STEEL LLC v.”
CEMEX, S.A. v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 745 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). · cites it 9× “28 U.S.C. § 255 (a). Rule 77(e)(2) of the Rules of this Court implement these statutory provisions in pertinent part: *748 (2) Assignment to Three-Judge Panel.”
Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 2d 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). “Statute of Limitations Defendants next contend that because the Complaint was filed two years and two months after Plaintiffs’ termination at Malabar, their FLSA claims are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “1538 (1987), Chief Judge Re assigned this action to a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 255 (a) (1982) and Rule 77(d)(2) of the Rules of this Court.”
Seattle Marine Fishing Supply Co. v. United States, 709 F. Supp. 226 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). · cites it 4× “MEMORANDUM OPINION RE, Chief Judge: Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 255 (a) (1982), and Rule 77(e)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of International Trade, plaintiffs move before the chief judge for the reassignment of this action, presently assigned to a…”
Show all 40 citing 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.