Opinion
Civil No. 2:01CV23B
March 5, 2001
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs' request, raised in their second amended complaint, that the Court convene a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. in this case plaintiffs include the State of Utah, several of its elected officials, and individual resident citizens. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, all of whom are involved with the execution of the 2000 census in the State of Utah by the Bureau of the Census. Plaintiffs summarize this case as follows:
The present action challenges the Defendants' failure, in the most recent census, to count missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("the LDS Church") who are temporarily serving abroad on the same terms as federal employees temporarily sewing abroad.
(Pl. 2nd Amend. Compl. at 2.)
Plaintiffs allege that 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is invoked here because the result of the census will be used for the apportionment of congressional districts. Pursuant to § 2284,
A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.
Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants' failure to treat" LDS missionaries and federal employees "equally has thus far resulted in Utah's being deprived of an additional member of Congress to which the State is entitled." (Pl. 2nd Amend. Compl. at 2.)
However, plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts whatsoever. In fact, by alleging that "Utah would have received one additional Representative if the census had counted even 900 of the 11,176" LDS missionaries stationed abroad who were from Utah, (Pl. 2nd Amend. Compl. at ¶ 40.), plaintiffs apparently acknowledge that the apportionment of congressional districts proportional to each state's population is fair and constitutional. Plaintiffs' sole challenge is to the calculation of the underlying census data that will be applied to the apportionment process. From the plain language of § 2284, a three-judge panel is not expressly authorized in this case involving a challenge to the census, and not to the constitutionality of any apportionment statute.
It appears clear from the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 2284 that Congress did not intend for the use of three-judge panels in cases not expressly authorized by statute. In 1976, Congress repealed former 28 U.S.C. § 2281 and 2282 which required a three-judge panel in cases seeking an injunction restraining the enforcement of any act of Congress or a state statute. The legislative history shows that in so doing, Congress intended to substantially limit the use of three-judge panels. Congress recognized that such panels impose a high burden on the judicial system. See S. Rep. No. 94-204 (1975), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1988. Consistent with these intentions, § 2284(a) was amended to expressly state the limited categories of cases requiring a three-judge panel. It is clear from this legislative history that a three-judge panel should be convened only if expressly required under § 2284. See City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick, 503 F. Supp. 657, 658 (E.D. Pa. 1980); Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564, 577-78 (D.D.C. 1980).
There is nothing to suggest that a three-judge panel is required here. 28 U.S.C. § 2284 does not require a three-judge panel when the constitutionality of a census is challenged. Furthermore, it is clear from the legislative history that § 2284(a) was intended to be limited to "continue the requirement for a three-judge court in cases challenging the constitutionality of any statute apportioning congressional districts or apportioning any statewide legislative body." See H.R. Rep. No. 1379 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2000; S. Rep. No. 94-204. There is no such challenge to an apportionment statute here. See City of Philadelphia, 503 F. Supp. at 658; Federation for American Immigration Reform, 486 F. Supp. at 577-78. Because plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts, § 2284 has no application. See Federation for American Immigration Reform, 486 F. Supp. at 577-78. Therefore, plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel is DENIED.
The Court recognizes that the United States Supreme Court recently decided a case related to the census where three-judge panels were convened by two district courts. See Dept. of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999). Three-judge panels in that case appear to have been appropriate because the challenges were to the use of statistical sampling by the Census Bureau specifically for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives among the States. The courts there determined that the Census Act prohibits the use of such sampling for apportionment purposes. See id. at 343. Here, however, there is no such direct challenge to the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts. Neither the Supreme Court nor the district courts addressed the issue of a three-judge panel under § 2284.