18 U.S.C. § 1654
Arming or serving on privateers
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, without the limits thereof, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm or is concerned in furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private vessel of war or privateer, with intent that such vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property; or
Whoever takes the command of or enters on board of any such vessel with such intent; or
Whoever purchases any interest in any such vessel with a view to share in the profits thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates
Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates (2009)
“at *2; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1654 & Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c). Observing that a litigant’s statutory right of self-representation has “ancient lineage,” the magistrate judge was wary of giving the term “incompetent,” as used in *67 Rule 17(c), too broad a definition because doing so…”
Pressman-Gutman Co. v. First Union National Bank (2006)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1654 . . The relationship between First Union and Forefront is not relevant to the discussion in this dissent and they will hereafter collectively be referred to as "First Union.”
Rosales v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (2020)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1654 (providing that, in federal court, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct cases therein”).”
Thomas v. Johnson (INMATE 1) (2025)
“22, 2023) (“Representation on behalf of another by a pro se litigant is typically determined to be a nullity”; “[E]ven if both Plaintiffs have … power of attorney over Kenneth Dickerson, they still may not pursue a case pro se on his behalf”) (citations omitted); see also 18…”
Carr v. United States (2025)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1654 . Individuals who do not have a law license may not represent other parties in federal court.”
Rodriguez v. Carroll (2025)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1654 . However, the Ninth Circuit has held that, because § 1654 authorizes nonlawyers to conduct “their own cases personally,” they have no authority to appear on behalf of others.”
Patel v. Patel (2025)
“Petitioners’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition As established, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend its pleading with the court’s leave, and that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so 2 In their motion for leave,…”
Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates (2009)
“at *2; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1654 & Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).”
In Re: Pressman (2006)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1654 . 28 II. The facts and procedural history are ably set forth in the Majority Opinion and will only be briefly summarized here.”
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.