U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 13— ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO OTHER COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 297

Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit, district, magistrate, or territorial judge of a court of the Ninth Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the respective court.(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount received pursuant to this subsection.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1022(1), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4672; amended Pub. L. 112–149, § 3, July 26, 2012, 126 Stat. 1145.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–149 substituted “circuit, district, magistrate, or territorial judge of a court” for “circuit or district judge”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1998–1998 · leading case: Betz v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 286 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 286 (Fed. Cl. 1998). · cites it 5× “§ 601 (1988), and 28 U.S.C. § 297 (1994). Plaintiff cites Lopez as authority for the proposition that if the federal government’s jurisdiction was not limited, then it could tax “compact state individuals” on all income “at a 100 percent rate,” thus denying the states any…”
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.