EX PARTE COGDELL ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners sought a three-judge court to enjoin enforcement of congressional legislation governing the District of Columbia school system, but the district court denied their request and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court granted mandamus review to resolve whether Section 2282 of the Judicial Code, which requires a three-judge court to enjoin "any Act of Congress," applies to legislation affecting only the District of Columbia or only to laws of general national application, a jurisdictional question that would determine whether the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals has appellate authority over such cases. The Court continued the case pending the views of the Court of Appeals on this issue of general importance to District of Columbia judicial administration.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to restrain on constitutional grounds the enforcement of certain legislation passed by Congress for the administration of the District of Columbia school system. Petitioners’ request that a court of three judges be convened under Section 2282 of the Judicial Code1 was denied. Subsequently, the motion of defendant school officials to dismiss the suit for failure to state a cause of action was granted.
Petitioners filed a motion in this Court for leave to filé a petition for a writ of mandamus directing that a court of three judges be convened to hear ai\d determine their constitutional claims. ' As substantial jurisdictional questions were raised, we granted the motion and issued a rule to show cause why mandamus should not be granted. 342 U. S. 805. In addition to this mandamus action, appeals were taken by petitioners to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and are now pending in that court.
One of the jurisdictional questions raised by this caséis whether a court of three judges is required by Section 2282 in a suit to enjoin enforcement of congressional enactments affecting only the District of Columbia. The Section uses the words “any Act of Congress.” As against petitioners’ contention that all legislation passed by Congress is embraced-within that language, it is urged that a proper interpretation of Section 2282 confines the phrase “Act of Congress” to laws having general application throughout the United States. Resolution of this' issue determines whether this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in this class of case,2 or whether the Court of. Appeals has jurisdiction. As a result, the same question is necessarily before the Court of Appeals for the District of.Columbia Circuit in its consideration of petitioners’ appeals now pending in that court.3 Because the question is one of general importance to judicial administration within the District of Columbia, we continue this case on our docket' to await the views of the Court of Appeals.
Cause continued.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2282:
“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.”
28 U. S. C. (Supp.IV) § 1253.
Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 U. S. 10 (1930).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1969)…(c) is otherwise within one of the categories of public assistance established by this chapter.” See D. C. Handbook of Pub. Assistance Policies and Procedures, HPA-2, EL 9.1, I, III (1966) (hereinafter cited as D. C. Handbook). In Ex parte Cogdell, 342 U. S. 163 (1951), this Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to determine whether 28 U. S. C. § 2282, requiring a three-judge court when the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is challenged, applied to Acts of Congre…
-
Hyman v. Joseph Regenstein (Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago, 258 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1958)…to our conception of ordinary honesty. * * * Hyman was under a contractual obligation to assign to plaintiff all inventions.” Julius Hy-man & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 1951, 123 Colo. 563, 233 P. 2d 977, 983, certiorari denied 1951, 342 U.S. 870, 895, 72 S.Ct. 196, 96 L.Ed. 671. In 1949, after Hyman and Julius Hy-man & Company were enjoined from producing and marketing chlordane, the company began marketing “aldrin” and “dieldrin”, other insecticides discovered by Hyman and his associates while employed at V…
-
Gomez v. Layton, 394 F.2d 764 (D.C. Cir. 1968)…remises was based only on an anonymous tip. See also Refoule v. Ellis, 74 F.Supp. 336 (N.D.Ga.1947). . A three-judge court may not be required in this case, either because (a) this is only a local District of Columbia statute, see Ex parte Cogdell, 342 U.S. 163, 72 S.Ct. 196, 96 L.Ed. 181 (1951), but see also Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954); or (b) appellant only asked for a declaratory judgment rather than an injunction against enforcement of the statute, see Kennedy v. Mend…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stratton v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1930)
- Bircham v. Kentucky, 342 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1951)