There is, moreover, no reason to think that when in 1976 Congress amended the three-judge statute, it intended to make this imperative nonjurisdictional. In 1976, Congress vastly reduced the category of cases for which a three-judge court is mandated. In doing so, Congress gave no indication that it intended to alter the three-judge requirement, other than to reduce the category of cases in which it applied. Indeed, the Senate report stated that “the other powers here given the single judge, or expressly denied him, are similar to those stated in” the predecessor version of
§ 2284.
S.Rep. No. 94–204, at 13 (1975). U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 1988, 2001. The House of Representatives report made a similar statement,
see H.R.Rep. No. 94–1379, at 7;
see also S.Rep. No. 94–204, at 2, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976 at p. 1989;
cf. LaRouche v. Fowler, 152 F.3d 974, 982 & n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1998). And nothing in the legislative history that describes the reasons for retaining the three-judge requirement in apportionment challenges suggests any change with respect to jurisdiction. The Senate report merely noted that “these issues are of such importance” and “they have never constituted a large number of cases.”
S.Rep. No. 94–204, at 9, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1976 at p. 1996.