18 U.S.C. § 1509
Obstruction of court orders
Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: United States v. Robert E. Cooley Ronald L. Taylor Gary P. Leber Merri W. Turner, Also Known as Merrie Foutz & Charles W. Matson, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Robert E. Cooley Ronald L. Taylor Gary P. Leber Merri W. Turner, Also Known as Merrie Foutz & Charles W. Matson, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993). “They were charged and subsequently convicted by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1509 , which makes it a misdemeanor for any person, by threat or force, willfully to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, or willfully attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere…”
Carl Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 737 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “§ 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees); 18 U.S.C. § 1509 (obstruction of court orders); 18 U.”
Chandler v. Siegleman, 180 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 1999). “18 U.S.C. § 1509 (1994) (authorizing injunctive relief against persons who forcefully interfere with the performance of duties under a court order, regardless of whether the conduct enjoined is also independently criminal).”
Benjamin Craig Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2000). “Long then amended his complaint, adding that “[ojther public policies of this Commonwealth and of the United States which have been violated by the Defendant’s wrongful termination of the Plaintiff include, but are not limited to” the policies embodied in four federal criminal…”
United States v. Edward Rodriguez, A/K/A Rick, Thomas J. Albernaz, Peter Smigowski, & William John Martins, 612 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1980). “§ 241,' as well as 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 , proscribing conspiracy to interfere with a court order.”
United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000). “§ 1169 (b) (any person who “inhibits or prevents” certain individuals from making reports of child abuse in Indian country commits a crime); 18 U.S.C. § 1509 (“Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents .”
United States v. Ross R. Barnett & Paul B. Johnson, Jr, 330 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1963). “Finally, Congress, in 1960, passed 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 . 16 Whatever may have been the purpose of Congress-in passing this Act, the effect of it certainly was to combine with 18 U.”
United States v. Joseph E. Griffin, Jr., 525 F.2d 710 (1st Cir. 1976). “]” Title 18 U.S.C. § 1509 , count 2, forbids forcefully and willfully attempting “to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights .”
United States v. Charles Randell Greer, 158 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1998). “As for Fontenot and Taylor , disobedience to a court order, however, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1509 and therefore triggers § 3C1.”
James G. Clark, Jr., Sheriff of Dallas Cnty., Alabama v. Amelia P. Boynton, 362 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1966). “§ 241 , 13 if not of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 . 14 In either situation, §§ 402 and 3691 assured a jury trial unless it were waived.”
United States v. Merrie Warren Turner, AKA Merrie Foutz, 44 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 1995). “Turner testified she was at the clinic as a “sidewalk counselor” and entered the clinic in order to pray and place her body in front of a woman who was attempting to enter the clinic. Ms. Turner was indicted for assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.”
William Sterling Rosecrans, Jr. v. United States, 378 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1967). “The second count charged that on February 16, 1964, by threats and force, they, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1509 , did unlawfully prevent, obstruct, impede and interfere with, and did unlawfully attempt to obstruct, impede and interfere with the due exercise of rights of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.