28 U.S.C. § 1406
Section 1406 · Cure or waiver of defects
Amended 6 times on record
Applied in 2,669 court decisions — leading case Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (1975)
Most recently applied in Austin Beber v. Navsav Holdings, LLC (June 2025)
Applied most in the District Circuit Circuit (264 decisions)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
(a) The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue.
(c) As used in this section, the term “district court” includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the term “district” includes the territorial jurisdiction of each such court.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Historical and Revision Notes
1948 Act
Subsection (a) provides statutory sanction for transfer instead of dismissal, where venue is improperly laid.
Subsection (b) is declaratory of existing law. (See Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 1924, 44 S.Ct. 391, 264 U.S. 375, 68 L.Ed. 748.) It makes clear the intent of Congress that venue provisions are not jurisdictional but may be waived.
1949 Act
This section removes an ambiguity in section 1406(a) of title 28, U.S.C., by substituting “may” for “shall”, thus making it clear that the court may decline to transfer a case brought in the wrong district under circumstances where it would not be in the interest of justice to make such transfer.
Amendments
1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–317 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “As used in this section, ‘district court’ includes the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone; and ‘district’ includes the territorial jurisdiction of that court.”
1982—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 97–164 redesignated subsec. (d) as (c). Former subsec. (c), which provided that if a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims were filed in a district court, the district court, if it were in the interest of justice, was required to transfer the case to the Court of Claims where the case would proceed as if it had been filed in the Court of Claims on the date that it was filed in the district court, was struck out.
1962—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 87–845 added subsec. (d).
1960—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–770 added subsec. (c).
1949—Subsec. (a). Act May 24, 1949, inserted “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice”.
Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–317 applicable to cases pending on Oct. 19, 1996, and to cases commenced on or after such date, see section 610(c) of Pub. L. 104–317, set out as a note under section 1404 of this title.
Effective Date of 1982 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
Effective Date of 1962 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 87–845 effective Jan. 2, 1962, see section 25 of Pub. L. 87–845, set out as a note under section 14 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
Effective Date of 1960 Amendment
Section 4 of Pub. L. 86–770 provided in part that: “The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 of this Act [adding subsec. (c) of this section and section 1506 of this title] shall apply to any case or proceeding pending on, or brought after, the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 13, 1960] in the district courts or the Court of Claims.”
Cross References
Equal employment opportunity provisions, judicial district of principal office as district in which action might have been brought, see section 2000e–5 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.