Augusta Svejkovsky v. The Honorable Edward A. Tamm, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Augusta Svejkovsky v. The Honorable Edward A. Tamm, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

326 F.2d 657, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1963

Docket18219

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 326 F.2d 657 (Augusta Svejkovsky v. The Honorable Edward A. Tamm, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Augusta Svejkovsky v. The Honorable Edward A. Tamm, District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 326 F.2d 657, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brought an action in the District Court against the Secretary of State requesting, inter alia, an injunction against the enforcement of Section 352(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 269, 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a) (1), on the ground of its alleged unconstitutionality. As the Government concedes, this suit must be heard and determined by a court of three judges. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282, 2284. The single judge, however, failed to take the neces[658]*658sary steps to have a three-judge court convened. Instead, on the motion of the Secretary of State, he stayed further proceedings pending the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case raising the same or similar issues.

In Frank v. McLaughlin, D.C. Cir., No. 14,972, March 16, 1959, where the District Court had stayed proceedings in one suit against the Secretary of State pending the outcome on appeal of another similar case, we decided that such a stay was improper and that mandamus would lie to require the District Court to “proceed and consider this case in the regular course of its business.” If such a stay is deemed proper here, under § 2284 it should, in any event, be granted by the court of three judges, and not by the single judge who is required to initiate the three-judge proceedings.

This court is not powerless to give guidance to the single judge in § 2284 situations. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 716, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962). No final action will now be taken, however, on the petition for writ of mandamus, as we assume that the District Court will take appropriate action in vacating the stay and in requesting a three-judge court pursuant to § 2284(1).

An appropriate order will issue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brought an action in the District Court against the Secretary of State requesting, inter alia, an injunction against the enforcement of Section 352(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 269, 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a) (1), on the ground of its alleged unconstitutionality. As the Government concedes, this suit must be heard and determined by a court of three judges. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282, 2284. The single judge, however, failed to take the neces[658]*658sary steps to have a three-judge court convened. Instead, on the motion of the Secretary of State, he stayed further proceedings pending the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case raising the same or similar issues.

In Frank v. McLaughlin, D.C. Cir., No. 14,972, March 16, 1959, where the District Court had stayed proceedings in one suit against the Secretary of State pending the outcome on appeal of another similar case, we decided that such a stay was improper and that mandamus would lie to require the District Court to “proceed and consider this case in the regular course of its business.” If such a stay is deemed proper here, under § 2284 it should, in any event, be granted by the court of three judges, and not by the single judge who is required to initiate the three-judge proceedings.

This court is not powerless to give guidance to the single judge in § 2284 situations. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 716, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962). No final action will now be taken, however, on the petition for writ of mandamus, as we assume that the District Court will take appropriate action in vacating the stay and in requesting a three-judge court pursuant to § 2284(1).

An appropriate order will issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 657, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augusta-svejkovsky-v-the-honorable-edward-a-tamm-district-judge-of-the-cadc-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack