28 U.S.C. § 144
Section 144 · Bias or prejudice of judge
Amended 2 times on record
Applied in 1,446 court decisions — leading case Liteky et al United States (1994)
Most recently applied in Halscott Megaro, P.A. v. Henry McCollum (April 2023)
Applied most in the Ninth Circuit Circuit (146 decisions)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §25 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §21, 36 Stat. 1090).
The provision that the same procedure shall be had when the presiding judge disqualifies himself was omitted as unnecessary. (See section 291 et seq. and section 455 of this title.)
Words, “at which the proceeding is to be heard,” were added to clarify the meaning of words, “before the beginning of the term.” (See U.S. v. Costea, D.C.Mich. 1943, 52 F.Supp. 3.)
Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.
1949 Act
This amendment clarifies the intent in section 144 of title 28, U.S.C., to conform to the law as it existed at the time of the enactment of the revision limiting the filing of affidavits of prejudice to one such affidavit in any case.
Amendments
1949—Act May. 24, 1949, substituted “in any case” for “as to any judge” in second sentence of second par.
Abolition of Terms
For abolition of formal terms of the court and replacement by sessions, see sections 138 and 139 of this title.