28 U.S.C. § 411

Supreme Court reports; printing, binding, and distribution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be printed, bound, and distributed in the preliminary prints and bound volumes of the United States Reports as soon as practicable after rendition, to be charged to the proper appropriation for the judiciary. The number and distribution of the copies shall be under the control of the Joint Committee on Printing.(b) Reports printed prior to June 12, 1926, shall not be furnished the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force.(c) The Director of the Government Publishing Office, or other printer designated by the Supreme Court of the United States, upon request, shall furnish to the Superintendent of Documents the reports required to be distributed under the provisions of this section.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 904; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 68, 63 Stat. 99; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 41, 65 Stat. 725; July 10, 1952, ch. 632, § 4, 66 Stat. 540; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, § 1301(d), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 334 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 227, 36 Stat. 1154; Mar. 4, 1911, ch. 285, § 1, 36 Stat. 1419; July 1, 1922, ch. 267, § 3, 42 Stat. 816; June 12, 1926, ch. 568, 44 Stat. 736; Jan. 29, 1929, ch. 113, 45 Stat. 1143; Mar. 2, 1929, ch. 488, § 1, 45 Stat. 1475; July 3, 1930, ch. 863, § 1, 46 Stat. 1016; Feb. 23, 1931, ch. 276, § 30, 46 Stat. 1214; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158; June 30, 1932, ch. 314, § 501, 47 Stat. 415; May 10, 1934, ch. 277, § 512, 48 Stat. 758; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §§ 12, 14, June 10, 1933; June 7, 1934, ch. 426, 48 Stat. 926; May 27, 1936, ch. 463, § 1, 49 Stat. 1380; June 20, 1936, ch. 630, § 5, 49 Stat. 1549; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921).

Requirements for printing, binding, and issuing Supreme Court decisions “within eight months after said decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court” and provision for distribution “within said period” were omitted. The phrase “as soon as practicable after rendition” was made the time for publishing such decisions as more flexible and practicable.

The words “the United States Court for China” were omitted inasmuch as that court is no longer functioning. The Secretary of State by an arrangement with China has relinquished the extraterritorial jurisdiction previously exercised by the United States in China. The 1944 Legislative and Judiciary Appropriation Act approved June 28, 1943, made no appropriation for the United States Court for China. Appropriations for other courts were made in title II of chapter 173 (57 Stat. 241). The last appropriation for the United States Court for China was in the act of July 2, 1942 (ch. 472, title IV, 56 Stat. 502).

The words “to the Secretary of War for the use of the proper courts and officers of the Philippine Islands, seven copies” were omitted in view of the independence of the Philippines, effective July 4, 1946.

The phrase “justice or judge of the United States” obviated repetition of names of courts. (See definitive section 451 of this title.)

Last sentence, fourth paragraph, of section 334 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., requiring that books should remain the property of the United States and should be preserved and turned over to successors in office, was omitted as covered by section 414 of this title.

A reference to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia was omitted as covered by “each United States attorney.”

Provision authorizing distribution of volumes under this section to each place where a court of appeals is held was added for purposes of uniformity. See similar provision in section 413 of this title.

The revised section substitutes the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in lieu of the Attorney General insofar as distribution of volumes to the judiciary is concerned. This change is consistent with the duties of the former under section 601 et seq. of this title.

Provision of section 334 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as to the custody, use and delivery to successors was omitted as obsolete on advice of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

The limitation of 10 copies to the library of the Supreme Court and 6 copies to the marshal of the Supreme Court for use of the justices, was omitted and the provision for distribution in such number “specified by the Chief Justice of the United States” was substituted therefor.

Authority for making an appropriation to carry into effect the provisions of this section is contained in section 336 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Acts July 1, 1922, ch. 267, § 5, 42 Stat. 818; May 29, 1926, ch. 425, § 3, 44 Stat. 678 which is omitted, but not repealed, as unnecessary in this revision.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

1949 Act

Subsection (a) of this section substitutes, in section 411(a) of title 28, U.S.C., “Secretary of the Army” and “Department of the Army” for “Secretary of War” and “War Department,” in view of such redesignation by act of July 26, 1947 (ch. 343, title II, § 205(a), 61 Stat. 501). It substitutes, in section 411(a), “Commissioner of Customs; Commandant of the Coast Guard” for “Chief of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation,” in view of the abolishment of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, and the transfer of its functions to, and the division thereof between, the Commissioner of Customs and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, by 1946 Reorganization Plan No. 3, §§ 101–104, effective July 16, 1946 (11 F.R. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097).

It substitutes, in such section 411(a), “Director of the Bureau of Land Management” for “Commissioner of the General Land Office,” in view of section 403 of such plan which abolished the General Land Office and created the Bureau of Land Management, headed by a Director. It inserts as new, in such section 411(a), references to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, and Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, in view of the creation of the National Military Establishment, headed by the Secretary of Defense, and the establishment of the Department of the Air Force in 1947.

Subsection (b) of this section redesignates, in section 411(b) of title 28, U.S.C., the Secretary of War as “Secretary of the Army,” for the reasons stated above, and corrects a typographical error in the word “court-martial”.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1952—Act July 10, 1952, amended section generally to provide for flexibility in the printing and distribution of the reports under congressional control.

1951—Subsec. (c). Act Oct. 31, 1951, in second par., substituted “Secretary of the Army” for “Secretary of War”.

1949—Subsec. (a). Act May 24, 1949, § 68(a), inserted “Secretary of Defense”, “Secretary of the Air Force”, and “Judge Advocate General of the Air Force” where appearing, and substituted “Secretary of the Army” for “Secretary of War”, “Department of the Army” for “War Department”, “Director of the Bureau of Land Management” for “Commissioner of the General Land Office”, “Commissioner of Customs, Commandant of the Coast Guard” for “Chief of the Bureau of Marine Inspection”, and “Chief of Forest Service, Department of Agriculture” for “Chief Forester, National Park Service, Department of the Interior”.

Subsec. (b). Act May 24, 1949, § 68(b), substituted “Secretary of the Army” for “Secretary of War” and “Court-martial” for “courtmartial”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“Director of the Government Publishing Office” substituted for “Public Printer” in subsec. (c) on authority of section 1301(d) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases, 1930–2020 · leading case: Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942).
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942). · cites it 2× “3 Section 275 of the Judicial Code ( 28 U. S. C. § 411 ) provides in substance that jurors in a federal court are to have the qualifications of jurors in the highest court of the State.”
Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946). · cites it 4× “Judicial Code § 275, 28 U.S.C. § 411 . *191 This provision applies to grand as well as petit juries.”
Thiel v. S. Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1946). · cites it 2× “For the most part, of course, the qualifications and exemptions in regard to federal jurors are to be determined by the laws of the state where the federal court is located, 28 U.”
Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947). · cites it 2× “[32] See Judicial Code, §§ 275, 276, 28 U.S.C. §§ 411 , 412; Ballard v. United States, 329 U.”
Han Lee v. Superintendent Houtzdale SCI, 798 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2015). “But the United States Reports, the official reporter for the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 411 , treats the case as an opinion of the Court.”
Beulah Chase v. Roland McMasters Jack Smith, Jr., Wayne Turner, Arlyn Wadholm & Russel Pederson, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978). “400 (1947) (Judi ciary Act, 28 U.S.C. § 411 (1940)). See also the discussion in Lynch v.”
United States v. Roemig, 52 F. Supp. 857 (N.D. Iowa 1943). · cites it 2× “In practical recognition of the valid distinctions in qualifications for jury service which may exist upon a local basis in a nation as large and as varied as ours, the congress has made such qualifications in the Federal Courts to depend upon the lawfully established practice…”
United States v. Chapman, 158 F.2d 417 (10th Cir. 1946). “28 U.S.C.A. § 411 . Section 572, Title 12 O.”
Thiel v. S. Pac. Co., 67 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Cal. 1946). · cites it 3× “It would seem unnecessary to dilate upon, or otherwise give particular attention to, the several grounds urged, for they are in the main unsubstantial and fully answered by the Federal Statutes applicable: 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 411 , 412 et seq. It is evident from a reading of the…”
Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 464 F. Supp. 1265 (M.D. Penn. 1979). “Finally, the Defendants moved to dismiss those portions of the complaint relating to the failure of the Union to adopt the proposed by-laws insofar as the Plaintiffs have attempted to state a cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(1) & 411(a)(2) which guarantee members of…”
Marion Frank Crawford v. V. Lee Bounds, Warden of Cent. Prison (Successor to K. B. Bailey), 395 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1968). “411 , 412] 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 411 , 412. This duty of selection may not be delegated.”
Gridley v. United States, 44 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1930). “Overruling two' motions to quash the indictment and a motion that they be pormitted to withdraw their plea of not guilty and to file a plea in abatement: The first motion to quash the indictment was made at the time of arraignment and on the ground that one of the grand jurors…”
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.