(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.

(b) The Supreme Court, any justice thereof, and any circuit judge may decline to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus and may transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it.

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or

(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or

(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States;

or

(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or (5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 964; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 112, 63 Stat. 105.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 451, 452, 453 (R. S. §§ 751, 752, 753; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 6, 43 Stat. 940).

Section consolidates sections 451, 452 and 453 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology necessary to effect the consolidation.

Words "for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty" in section 452 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., were omitted as merely descriptive of the writ. Subsection (b) was added to give statutory sanction to orderly and appropriate procedure. A circuit judge who unnecessarily entertains applications which should be addressed to the district court, thereby disqualifies himself to hear such matters on appeal and to that extent limits his usefulness as a judge of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justices should not be burdened with applications for writs cognizable in the district courts.

AMENDMENTS

1949-Subsec. (b). Act May 24, 1949, inserted commas following "Supreme Court" and "any justice thereof". RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Procedure on applications, see rule 31, Appendix to this

title.

§ 2242. Application.

Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.

It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant's commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.

It may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.

If addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge it shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 965.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 454 (R. S. § 754).

Words "or by someone acting in his behalf" were added. This follows the actual practice of the courts, as set forth in United States ex rel. Funaro v. Watchorn, C. C. 1908, 164 F. 152; Collins v. Traeger, C. C. A. 1928, 27 F. 2d 842, and cases cited.

The third paragraph is new. It was added to conform to existing practice as approved by judicial decisions. See Dorsey v. Gill (App. D. C.) 148 F. 2d 857, 865, 866. See also Holiday v. Johnston, 61 S. Ct. 1015, 313 U. S. 342, 85 L. Ed. 1392.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2243. Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision. A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The person to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention.

When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.

Unless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law the person to whom the

writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained.

The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts.

The return and all suggestions made against it may be amended, by leave of court, before or after being filed.

The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 965.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., §§ 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, and 461 (R. S. §§ 755—761). Section consolidates sections 455-461 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed.

The requirement for return within 3 days "unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding 20 days, is allowed" in the second paragraph, was substituted for the provision of such section 455 which allowed 3 days for return if within 20 miles, 10 days if more than 20 but not more than 100 miles, and 20 days if more than 100 miles distant.

Words "unless for good cause additional time is allowed" in the fourth paragraph, were substituted for words "unless the party petitioning requests a longer time" in section 459 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed.

The fifth paragraph providing for production of the body of the detained person at the hearing is in conformity with Walker v. Johnston, 1941, 61 S. Ct. 574, 312 U. S. 275, 85 L. Ed. 830.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2244. Finality of determination.

No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, or of any State, if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition presents no new ground not theretofore presented and determined, and the judge or court is satisfied that the ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 965.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-This section makes no material change in existing practice. Notwithstanding the opportunity open to litigants to abuse the writ, the courts have consistently refused to entertain successive "nuisance" applications for habeas corpus. It is derived from H. R. 4232 introduced in the first session of the Seventy-ninth Congress by Chairman Hatton Sumners of the Committee on the Judiciary and referred to that Committee.

The practice of suing out successive, repetitious, and unfounded writs of habeas corpus imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts. See Dorsey v. Gill, 1945, 148 F. 2d 857, 862, in which Miller, J., notes that "petitions for the writ are used not only as they should be to protect unfortunate persons against miscarriages of justice, but also as a device for harassing court, custodial, and enforcement officers with a multiplicity of repetitious, meritless requests for relief. The most extreme example is that of a person who, between July 1, 1939, and April 1944 presented in the District Court 50 petitions for writs of habeas corpus; another person has presented 27 petitions; a third, 24; a fourth, 22; a fifth, 20. One hundred nineteen persons have presented 597 petitions-an average of 5."

SENATE REVISION AMENDMENTS

For Senate amendment of this section, see 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559, amendment No. 45.

§ 2245. Certificate of trial judge admissible in evidence.

On the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment the certificate of the judge who presided at the trial resulting in the judgment, setting forth the facts occurring at the trial, shall be admissible in evidence. Copies of the certificate shall be filed with the court in which the application is pending and in the court in which the trial took place. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-This section makes no substantive change in existing law. It is derived from H. R. 4232 introduced in the first session of the Seventy-ninth Congress by Chairman Sumners of the House Committee on the Judiciary. It clarifies existing law and promotes uniform procedure.

§ 2246. Evidence; depositions; affidavits.

On application for a writ of habeas corpus, evidence may be taken orally or by deposition, or, in the discretion of the judge, by affidavit. If affidavits are admitted any party shall have the right to propound written interrogatories to the affiants, or to file answering affidavits. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-This section is derived from H. R. 4232 introduced in the first session of the Seventy-ninth Congress by Chairman Sumners of the House Committee on the Judiciary. It clarifies existing practice without substantial change.

§ 2247. Documentary evidence.

On application for a writ of habeas corpus documentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and sentence and a transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar application by or in behalf of the same petitioner, shall be admissible in evidence. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Derived from H. R. 4232, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. It is declaratory of existing law and practice.

§ 2248. Return or answer; conclusiveness.

The allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Derived from H. R. 4232, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. At common law the return was conclusive and could not be controverted but it is now almost universally held that the return is not conclusive of the facts alleged therein. 39 C. J. S. pp. 664-666, §§ 98, 99.

§ 2249. Certified copies of indictment, plea and judgment; duty of respondent.

On application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of any person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States, the respondent shall promptly file with the court certified copies of the indictment, plea of petitioner and the judgment, or such of them as may be material to the questions raised, if the petitioner fails

to attach them to his petition, and same shall be attached to the return to the writ, or to the answer to the order to show cause. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Derived from H. R. 4232, Seventyninth Congress, first session. It conforms to the prevalling practice in habeas corpus proceedings.

§ 2250. Indigent petitioner entitled to documents with

out cost.

If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his office as may be required by order of the judge before whom the application is pending. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Derived from H. R. 4232, Seventyninth Congress, first session. It conforms to the prevailing practice.

§ 2251. Stay of State court proceedings.

A justice or judge of the United States before whom a habeas corpus proceeding is pending, may, before final judgment or after final judgment of discharge, or pending appeal, stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State court or by or under the authority of any State for any matter involved in the habeas corpus proceeding.

After the granting of such a stay, any such proceeding in any State court or by or under the authority of any State shall be void. If no stay is granted, any such proceeding shall be as valid as if no habeas corpus proceedings or appeal were pending. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.) LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 465 (R. S. § 766; Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 226, 27 Stat. 751; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 8 (c), 43 Stat. 940; June 19, 1934, ch. 673, 48 Stat. 1177).

Provisions relating to proceedings pending in 1934 were deleted as obsolete.

A provision requiring an appeal to be taken within 3 months was omitted as covered by sections 2101 and 2107 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2252. Notice.

Prior to the hearing of a habeas corpus proceeding in behalf of a person in custody of State officers or by virtue of State laws notice shall be served on the attorney general or other appropriate officer of such State as the justice or judge at the time of issuing the writ shall direct. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 967.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 462 (R. S. § 762).

Section 462 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 eri., was limited to alien prisoners described in section 453 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed. The revised section extends to all cases of all prisoners under State custody or authority, leaving it to the justice or judge to prescribe the notice to State officers, to specify the officer served, and to satisfy himself that such notice has been given.

Provision for making due proof of such service was omitted as unnecessary. The sheriff's or marshal's return is sufficient.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2253. Appeal.

In a habeas corpus proceeding before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit where the proceeding is had.

There shall be no right of appeal from such an order in a proceeding to test the validity of a war rant to remove, to another district or place for commitment or trial, a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of his detention pending removal proceedings.

An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 967; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 113, 63 Stat. 105; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 52, 65 Stat. 727.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., §§ 463 (a) and 466 (Mar. 10, 1908, ch. 76, 36 Stat. 40; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, §§ 6, 13, 43 Stat. 940, 942; June 29, 1938, ch. 806, 52 Stat. 1232).

This section consolidates paragraph (a) of section 463, and section 466 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed.

The last two sentences of section 463 (a) of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., were omitted. They were repeated in section 452 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed. (See reviser's note under section 2241 of this title.) Changes were made in phraseology.

AMENDMENTS

1951-Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted "to remove, to another * * validity of his" for "of removal issued pursuant to section 3042 of Title 18 or the" in the second paragraph.

1949-Act May 24, 1949, substituted "3042" for "3041" in the second par.

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Commitment to another district; removal, see Rule 40, Title 18, Appendix, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

§ 2254. State custody; remedies in State courts.

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any (June available procedure, the question presented. 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-This new section is declaratory of existing law as affirmed by the Supreme Court. (See Ex parte Hawk, 1944, 64 S. Ct. 448, 321, U. S. 114, 88L. Ed. 572.)

SENATE REVISION AMENDMENTS

For Senate amendment to this section, see 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559, amendment No. 47.

§ 2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence.

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to

be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

A motion for such relief may be made at any time.

Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.

A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.

The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.

An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 967; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 114, 63 Stat. 105.) LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note. This section restates, clarifies and simplifies the procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of error coram nobis. It provides an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. It has the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Its principal provisions are incorporated in H. R. 4233, Seventy-ninth Congress.

§ 2281. Injunction against enforcement of State statute; three-judge court required.

An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 380 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 321, § 266, 36 Stat. 1162; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 160, 37 Stat. 1013; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 1, 43 Stat. 938).

Provisions of section 380 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., relating to Jurisdiction of direct appeals to the Supreme Court appear in section 1253 of this title. Other provisions of such section 380 are incorporated in sections 2101 and 2284 of this title.

Words "or permanent" were added near the beginning of the section as a substitute for the last sentence of such section 380, providing that the requirement as to the presence of three judges should also apply to the "final hearing in such suit in the district court." Also, this makes the section conform with section 2282 of this title, relating to similar proceeding as respects enactments of Congress. The only change in existing law is to require a three-judge court in cases where interlocutory injunction is not sought.

The references in such section 380 of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., to application to justices of the Supreme Court, are omitted. Such references represent "the inadvertent retention in the Judicial Code of a provision rendered obsolete when that code, by abolishing the old circuit courts, took from the Supreme Court Justices, sitting as circuit justices, their former power to entertain in the circuit courts applications for injunctions and to grant injunctions therein." (See report of Circuit Judges Evans, Stone, Phillips, and Maris, September 1943, referred to in reviser's note under section 2284 of this title.) § 2282. Injunction against enforcement of Federal statute; three-judge court required.

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. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 380a (Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 3, 50 Stat. 752). Provisions of section 380a of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., relating to Jurisdiction of direct appeals to the Supreme Court appear in section 1253 of this title, and provisions of such section relating to procedure in three-judge district courts are incorporated in sections 2101 and 2284 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2283. Stay of State court proceedings.

A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., § 379 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 265, 36 Stat. 1162).

An exception as to acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy was omitted and the general exception substituted to cover all exceptions.

The phrase "in aid of its jurisdiction" was added to conform to section 1651 of this title and to make clear the recognized power of the Federal courts to stay proceedings in State cases removed to the district courts.

The exceptions specifically include the words "to protect or effectuate its judgments," for lack of which the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts are without power to enjoin relitigation of cases and controversies fully adjudicated by such courts. (See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 62 S. Ct. 139, 314 U. S. 118, 86 L. Ed. 100. A vigorous dissenting opinion (62 S. Ct. 148) notes that at the time of the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code, the power of the courts, of the United States to protect their judgments was unquestioned and that the revisers of that code noted no change and Congress intended no change).

Therefore the revised section restores the basic law as generally understood and interpreted prior to the Toucey decision.

Changes were made in phraseology.

§ 2284. Three-judge district court; composition; procedure.

In any action or proceeding required by Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges the composition and procedure of the court, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be as follows:

(1) The district judge to whom the application for injunction or other relief is presented shall constitute one member of such court. On the filing of the application, he shall immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge. Such judges shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.

(2) If the action involves the enforcement, operation or execution of State statutes or State administrative orders, at least five days' notice of the hearing shall be given to the governor and attorney general of the State.

If the action involves the enforcement, operation or execution of an Act of Congress or an order of any department or agency of the United States, at least five days' notice of the hearing shall be given to the Attorney General of the United States, to the United States attorney for the district, and to such other persons as may be defendants.

Such notice shall be given by registered mail or by certified mail by the clerk and shall be complete on the mailing thereof.

(3) In any such case in which an application for an interlocutory injunction is made, the district judge to whom the application is made may, at any time, grant a temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable damage. The order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the full court. It shall contain a specific finding, based upon evidence submitted to such judge and identified by reference thereto, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted.

(4) In any such case the application shall be given precedence and assigned for a hearing at the earliest practicable day. Two judges must concur in granting the application.

(5) Any one of the three judges of the court may perform all functions, conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders required or permitted by the rules of civil procedure. A single judge shall not appoint a master or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for an interlocutory injunction or motion to vacate the same, or dismiss the action, or enter a summary or final judgment. The action of a single judge shall be reviewable by the full court at any time before final hearing.

A district court of three judges shall, before final hearing, stay any action pending therein to enjoin suspend or restrain the enforcement or execution of a State statute or order thereunder, whenever it appears that a State court of competent jurisdiction has stayed proceedings under such statute or order pending the determination in such State court of an action to enforce the same. If the action in the State court is not prosecuted diligently and in good faith, the district court of three judges may vacate its stay after hearing upon ten days notice served upon the attorney general of the State. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968; June 11, 1960, Pub. L. 86-507, § 1(19), 74 Stat. 201.)

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Reviser's Note.-Based on title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., §§ 47, 47a, 380, 380a, and 792 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 210, 266, 36 Stat. 1150, 1162; Mar. 4, 1943, ch. 160, 37 Stat. 1013; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 220; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 1, 43 Stat. 938; Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 3, 50 Stat. 752; Apr. 6, 1942, ch. 210, § 3, 56 Stat. 199).

Provisions of sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., relating to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction of direct appeals appear in section 1253 of this title.

Provisions of sections 47, 380, and 380a of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., requiring applications for injunctions restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of Federal or State statutes or orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission to be heard and determined by threeJudge district courts appear in sections 2281, 2282, and 2325 of this title.

The provision for notice to the United States attorney for the district where the action is pending was added because of the necessity of the United States attorney's preparation for hearing as soon as possible, to expedite such a case.

Provisions of sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., respecting time for direct appeal appear in section 2101 of this title.

This revised section represents an effort to provide a uniform method of convoking three-judge district courts, and for procedure therein. It follows recommendations of a committee appointed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, composed of Circuit Judges Evan A. Evans, Kimbrough Stone, Orie L. Phillips, and Albert B. Maris.

The committee pointed out that section 380a of title 28, U. S. C., 1940 ed., is the latest and "most carefully drawn expression by Congress on the subject." Consequently, this section follows closely such section 380a and eliminates the discrepancies between sections 47, 47a, 380, and 380a of such title.

This section governs only the composition and procedure of three-judge district courts. The requirement that applications for injunctions be heard and determined by such courts will appear in other sections of this and other titles of the United States Code as Congress may enact from time to time. For example, see sections 2281, 2282, and 2325 of this title, sections 1213,