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 Code 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, 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. 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).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.