ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

18 U.S.C. § 204Practice in United States Court of Federal Claims or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by Members of Congress

submitted 64 years ago by Pub. L. 87-849 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 46 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

A Member of Congress can't practice law in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The same ban applies to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Breaking this brings the penalties set out in section 216.

A person who is a Member of Congress, or a Member of Congress-elect, cannot practice law in the United States Court of Federal Claims or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Anyone who does this faces the penalties set out in section 216 of this title.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

Whoever, being a Member of Congress or Member of Congress Elect, practices in the United States Court of Federal Claims or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 87–849, § 1(a), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1122; amended Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(2), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 147, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 45; Pub. L. 101–194, title IV, § 403, Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1749; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1962Enacted · Pub. L. 87-849 · 76 Stat. 1122
  • 1970Amended · Pub. L. 91-405 · 84 Stat. 853
  • 1982Amended · Pub. L. 97-164 · 96 Stat. 45
  • 1989Amended · Pub. L. 101-194 · 103 Stat. 1749
  • 1992Amended · Pub. L. 102-572 · 106 Stat. 4516

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 87-849 on 1962-10-23.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case