28 U.S.C. § 292

District judges

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

(a) The chief judge of a circuit may designate and assign one or more district judges within the circuit to sit upon the court of appeals or a division thereof whenever the business of that court so requires. Such designations or assignments shall be in conformity with the rules or orders of the court of appeals of the circuit.(b) The chief judge of a circuit may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to hold a district court in any district within the circuit.(c) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may, upon presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to section 11–908(c) of the District of Columbia Code, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to serve as a judge of such Superior Court, if such assignment (1) is approved by the Attorney General of the United States following a determination by him to the effect that such assignment is necessary to meet the ends of justice, and (2) is approved by the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.(d) The Chief Justice of the United States may designate and assign temporarily a district judge of one circuit for service in another circuit, either in a district court or court of appeals, upon presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge or circuit justice of the circuit wherein the need arises.(e) The Chief Justice of the United States may designate and assign temporarily any district judge to serve as a judge of the Court of International Trade upon presentation to him of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge of the court.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 901; July 28, 1953, ch. 253, § 3, 67 Stat. 226; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, § 39(c), 68 Stat. 1240; July 9, 1956, ch. 517, § 1(b), 70 Stat. 497; July 14, 1956, ch. 589, § 2, 70 Stat. 532; Pub. L. 85–755, § 3, Aug. 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 848; Pub. L. 91–358, title I, § 172(e), July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 591; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §§ 203, 204, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2660; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 501(7), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1742; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 109, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 28.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 17, 21 and 216 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 13, 17, 120, 36 Stat. 1089, 1132; Sept. 14, 1922, ch. 306, § 3, 42 Stat. 839; Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 4, 50 Stat. 753; Dec. 29, 1942, ch. 835, § 1, 56 Stat. 1094).

Section consolidates and simplifies all provisions of sections 17, 21 and 216 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to designation and assignment of district judges.

Term “chief judge” was substituted for “senior circuit judge.” (See Reviser’s Note under section 136 of this title.)

Sections 17 and 21 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were inconsistent insofar as the words “or in his absence, the circuit judges thereof,” appearing in said section 17 were not in section 21, and the words “senior circuit judge then present in the circuit,” appearing in section 21 were not in section 17. The revised section omits all such words and leaves designation of assignment to the chief judge of the circuit. If the chief judge is unable to perform his duties they devolve, under section 45 of this title, upon the circuit judge next in seniority of commission.

The provision of said section 17, that designation of a district judge to another circuit should be from an adjacent circuit if practicable, was omitted as an unnecessary restriction on the discretion of the Chief Justice.

Section 19 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is omitted as unnecessary. It authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate and assign any district judge to a district upon receiving a certificate from the clerk of the district that all circuit judges and the circuit justice were absent from the circuit, or were unable to appoint a substitute judge for the district,or where the district judge actually designated was disabled or neglected to hold court.

For omission of reference in said section 17 to senior Associate Justice, see reviser’s note under section 291 of this title.

Reference in said section 17 to retired judges were omitted as covered by section 294 of this title.

Other provisions of said section 17 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 291, 295, and 296 of this title. Other provisions of said section 216 of such title are incorporated in sections 45 and 47 of this title.

Words “either in a district court or court of appeals” were inserted in subsection (c) as suggested by Hon. Learned Hand, Senior Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit. The revised section permits a district judge to be assigned directly to the circuit court of appeals of another circuit. Under existing law it has been assumed that he must be assigned to serve as a district judge on the other circuit and then designated to serve on the circuit court of appeals by that court in which his services are required.

Many changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 97–164 struck out “the Court of Claims, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals or” after “to serve as a judge of” and “in which the need arises” after “chief judge of the court”.

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

1978—Subsecs. (b), (d). Pub. L. 95–598 directed the amendment of subsec. (b) by substituting “to hold a district court or a bankruptcy court” for “to hold a district court” and the amendment of subsec. (d) by substituting “in a bankruptcy court, district court, or court of appeals” for “either in a district court or court of appeals”, which amendments did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

1970—Subsecs. (c) to (e). Pub. L. 91–358 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsecs. (c) and (d) as (d) and (e), respectively.

1958—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 85–755 reenacted subsecs. (a) to (c) without change.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 85–755 incorporated provisions for assignment of district judges to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Customs Court, formerly contained in section 293 of this title and subsec. (f) of this section.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 85–755 struck out subsec. (e) which provided for assignment of judges of the Court of Claims to district courts. See section 293(a) of this title.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 85–755 struck out subsec. (f) which provided for assignment of district judges to the Customs Court. See subsec. (d) of this section.

1956—Subsec. (e). Act July 9, 1956, added subsec. (e).

Subsec. (f). Act July 14, 1956, added subsec. (f).

1954—Subsec. (d). Act Sept. 3, 1954, struck out “United States” from name of Court of Claims.

1953—Subsec. (d). Act July 28, 1953, added subsec. (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective 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 of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–358 effective on first day of seventh calendar month which begins after July 29, 1970, see section 199(a) of Pub. L. 91–358, set out as a note under section 1257 of this title.

Jurisdiction of United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–755 not limiting or altering the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [now United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit], see section 7 of Pub. L. 85–755, set out as a note under section 291 of this title.

Limitation or Alteration of Jurisdiction

Amendment by act July 14, 1956, not to be construed as limiting or altering the jurisdiction heretofore conferred upon the Customs Court [now United States Court of International Trade], see section 4 of act July 14, 1956, set out as a note under section 251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 289 cases (90 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: United States v. Neal T. Roberts & James Albert Robison, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Neal T. Roberts & James Albert Robison, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “Of course, a judge of the transferor court, if properly designated under 28 U.S.C. § 292 , can conduct any and all steps in the indictment proceeding, including the trial.”

Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003). · cites it 2× “" 28 U. S. C. § 292 (a). Section 292(a) itself does not explicitly define the "district judges" who may be assigned to the court of appeals.”

United States v. Rene Boucher, 937 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2019). “Battani, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292 (b). No. 18-5683 United States v.”

Charleswell v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 308 F. Supp. 2d 545 (D.V.I. 2004). · cites it 2× “By Order dated September 26, 2001, then Chief Judge Edward Becker assigned the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292 (b). See 28 U.S.C. § 292 (b) *506 (“The chief judge of a circuit may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the…”

United States v. Boyd, 833 F. Supp. 1277 (N.D. Ill. 1993). · cites it 4× “Bauer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Mills temporarily held a district court within the Northern *1287 District of Illinois under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 292 (b). 11 . Pursuant to designation by Chief Judge William J.”

Clemente v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 867 F.3d 111 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “” 28 U.S.C. § 292 (d). Another provision gives -the Chief Justice the same authority with respect to judges who have assumed senior status.”

United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004). “The Government responded that, without such a procedure, Avants was in legal limbo, unable to appeal because there was no judgment; it also noted that the district judge had received permission from this court’s chief judge to hold court in the Northern District of Texas,…”

United States v. Alvin August Kramer, 827 F.2d 1174 (8th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Notwithstanding this continuance, the parties appear to agree that the basis for the continuance was removed less than a week later, when Judge Van Sickle returned to the bench.”

Bostic v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 166 F. Supp. 2d 350 (D.V.I. 2001). · cites it 2× “On February 6, 2001, Bostic’s suit was assigned to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292 (b), by Order of Chief Judge Edward R.”

W. Pac. R.R. Corp. v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 247 (1953). · cites it 2× “See 28 U. S. C. § 292 (a). And we do not mean to imply that the division which heard the merits of the appeal was any less a division of the Court of Appeals than would have been a division of three circuit judges.”

Dean v. Firor, 681 P.2d 321 (Alaska 1984). · cites it 4× “[3] Since this portion of the appellants' appeal was based on a challenge to the circuit judge's power to appoint a judge for the District of Alaska court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 292 (b), we find the case not on point.”

Novell v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013). “While the case was transferred for a period to a federal court in Maryland for consolidated pre-trial proceedings with other similar suits, see 28 U.S.C. § 1407 , it eventually returned to Utah for trial— along with Maryland District Judge J.”

Show all 289 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 292(a) — 2 cases

Carroll v. Gerber, et.al (D.V.I. 2022).

Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Fed. Judges (OLC 1995).

— 28 U.S.C. § 292(b) — 8 cases

John Leary v. United States, 268 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1959).

In Re Pub. Air Travel Tariff Litig., 360 F. Supp. 1397 (J.P.M.L. 1973).

Azurity Pharm., Inc. v. Bionpharma Inc. (D. Del. 2023).

— 28 U.S.C. § 292(c) — 1 case

John Leary v. United States, 268 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1959).

— 28 U.S.C. § 292(d) — 2 cases

Harold Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 489 F.2d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Zak Shaik v. Mark Melton, et al. (E.D. Okla. 2026).

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.