28 U.S.C. § 452
Courts always open; powers unrestricted by expiration of sessions
All courts of the United States shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing proper papers, issuing and returning process, and making motions and orders.
The continued existence or expiration of a session of a court in no way affects the power of the court to do any act or take any proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1931–2026 · leading case: Rasul v. Bush
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
“, at 189 (construing 28 U.S.C. § 452 , the statutory precursor to § 2241).”
Bond v. Utreras (2009)
“This right is derived from the common-law principle that courts are public institutions that operate openly a principle codified at 28 U.S.C. § 452 and judicially imposed limitations on this right are subject to the First Amendment.”
Ex Parte Endo (1945)
“That end may be served and the decree of the court made effective if a respondent who has custody of the prisoner is within reach of the court's process even though the prisoner has been removed from the district since the suit was begun.”
Elliot Carlson v. United States (2016)
“at 1073-74 (emphasis added) (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 452 ; Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.”
Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. (1952)
“[7] 28 U. S. C. § 452 ; see Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.”
Ex Parte James (2002)
“Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on district courts by Fed.”
United States v. Ward (2011)
“” Ward cites three provisions to support his motion: 28 U.S.C. § 452 ; Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11; and 18 U.”
Bonnie Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc. (1996)
“, 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on, district courts by Fed.”
Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1956)
“…Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333 . [8] The expiration of a Term of this Court is apparently no longer relevant. See 28 U. S. C. § 452 .”
Gondeck v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (1965)
“410, 415 (1882), abolished by the Congress in 1948, 28 U. S. C. § 452 (1958 ed.). Indeed, I doubted that the Court had the power to grant a successive petition for rehearing under a factual situation, as here, where a petition for certiorari had been denied over three years ago,…”
Davis v. United States (2008)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 452 . As this court has followed that obligation in reaching the decision contained herein, no additional relief can be granted to the plaintiffs.”
Zlotnick v. Hubbard (2008)
“Aretakis also makes reference to 28 U.S.C. § 452 (b)(5)(iii), which provides for recusal when “[the judge] or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them .”
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.