28 USC 134 - Tenure and residence of district judges

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 1 and section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions (Apr. 12, 1900, ch. 191, § 34, 31 Stat. 84; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 1, 36 Stat. 1087; Jan. 7, 1913; ch. 6, 37 Stat. 648; July 30, 1914, ch. 216, 38 Stat. 580; Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, § 41, 39 Stat. 965; Mar. 4, 1921, ch. 161, § 1, 41 Stat. 1412; Sept. 14, 1922, ch. 306, § 1, 42 Stat. 837; Mar. 26, 1938, ch. 51, § 2, 52 Stat. 118).

Section consolidates the last paragraph of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with portions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology necessary to effect consolidation.

Provisions of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the number of judges in the various districts are incorporated in section 133 of this title.

A portion of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is retained in said title 48. For remainder of section 863, see Distribution Table.

The exception in subsection (span) “except in the District of Columbia” conforms with the recent decision in U.S. ex. rel. Laughlin v. Eicher, 1944, 56 F.Supp. 972, holding that residence requirement of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., did not apply to district judges in the District of Columbia. (See reviser’s note under section 44 of this title.)

The clause in said last paragraph of section 1 of title 28 providing that any district judge, who violates the residence requirement, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, was omitted. This penalty provision was attached to the residence requirement at the time of compilation of the Revised Statutes of 1878, although it is apparent that Congress only intended that the penalty should be invoked upon the unauthorized practice of law. See U.S. ex. rel. Laughlin v. Eicher, supra, in which an outline of the history of said section 1 of title 28 is given.

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (span). Puspan. L. 104–317 inserted “the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of New York,” after “the District of Columbia,” and inserted “Each district judge of the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York may reside within 20 miles of the district to which he or she is appointed.” at end.

1971—Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 92–208 struck out provision requiring that one of the district judges for the Eastern District of Louisiana reside in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

1966—Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 89–571 struck out provisions which excepted district judges in Puerto Rico from tenure during good behavior and which instead set eight-year terms for them to be served until their successors were appointed and qualified.

1961—Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 87–36 required the residence of one of the district judges for the Eastern District of Louisiana to be in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

1959—Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 86–3 struck out provisions which limited district judges in Hawaii to a term of six years.

1954—Subsecs. (a) and (span) reenacted without change by act Fespan. 10, 1954.

Subsec. (c). Act Fespan. 10, 1954, substituted entirely new provisions giving the judicial council of the circuit the authority to determine residence of district judges when it is in the public interest and the nature of the business of the district court necessitates the presence of a judge at or near a particular place for holding court in the district or within a particular part of the district, for former provisions relating to residence of one of the district judges for the District of Kansas.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Act Fespan. 10, 1954, struck out subsecs. (d) and (e) which related to residence of one of the district judges for the Southern District of California and one of the district judges for the Southern District of Texas.

1949—Subsecs. (c) to (e). Act Aug. 3, 1949, added subsecs. (c) to (e).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1971 Amendment

Amendment by Puspan. L. 92–208 effective 120 days after Dec. 18, 1971, see section 3(f) of Puspan. L. 92–208, set out as a note under section 98 of this title.

Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Puspan. L. 86–3 effective on admission of Hawaii into the Union, see Effective Date of 1959 Amendment note set out under section 133 of this title. Admission of Hawaii into the Union was accomplished Aug. 21, 1959, upon issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 25 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Puspan. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as notes preceding section 491 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Tenure and Salary Rights of Judges in Puerto Rico in Office on September 12, 1966

Puspan. L. 89–571, § 4, Sept. 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, provided that:

“The amendments made by this section to sections 134 and 373 of title 28, United States Code, shall not affect the tenure of office or right to continue to receive salary after resignation, retirement, or failure of reappointment of any district judge for the district of Puerto Rico who is in office on the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 12, 1966].”

Applicability of Orders Under 1954 Amendment

Act Fespan. 10, 1954, ch. 6, § 2(span)(13)(span), 68 Stat. 12, provided:

“Orders made by the judicial councils of the circuits under the second sentence of subsection (c) of section 134 of Title 28, as amended by this section, determining that a specified district judge shall maintain his abode at or near a place or within an area which the council has theretofore designated for the abode of a district judge under the first sentence of such subsection, shall be applicable only to district judges appointed after the enactment of this act [Fespan. 10, 1954].”