18 U.S.C. § 1865
National Park Service
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
1865(a) | 16 U.S.C. 3 (1st sentence words after “National Park Service”) | Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, § 3 (1st sentence words after “National Park Service”), 39 Stat. 535; June 2, 1920, ch. 218, § 5 (last sentence words after “for other purposes’ ” and before proviso), 41 Stat. 732. |
1865(b) | Pub. L. 94–429, § 13(d), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1345. | |
1865(c) | Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 372, §§ 1, 2, 5, 29 Stat. 621, 622. | |
1865(d) | ||
In subsection (a), the words “fined under this title” are substituted for “punished by a fine of not more than $500” for consistency with chapter 227.
In subsection (b), the words “fined under this title” are substituted for “fined not more than $2,500” for consistency with chapter 227.
In subsection (c), the words “fined under this title but not less than $10” are substituted for “deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000” for consistency with chapter 227.
In subsection (d), the words “fined under this title” are substituted for “guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000” for consistency with chapter 227.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Usdoi, 946 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2019).
San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Usdoi, 946 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2019). “3(a) (subjecting violators to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1865 ). The ultimate issue in this case—on which we express no view—is whether, based on a series of interlocking provisions in the Golden Gate National Recreation Enabling Act, the federal government has the…”
Gordon Price v. Merrick Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1865 ; 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 , 5.5(a).”
United States v. Steele, 550 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2008). “It adopted an abridged version of the definition in 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (h)(4) 5 and instructed the jury that bodily injury means “(A) a cut, abrasion, or bruise, (B) physical pain, or (C) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.”
United States v. Stella, 591 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009). “In 2008, she pled guilty to three counts of tampering with a consumer product, 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (a)(4), three counts of obtaining controlled substances by deception and subterfuge, 21 U.”
In re Carlos Brown, 932 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2019). “3 ; see 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (a), and thus is a Class B misdemeanor, 18 U.”
United States v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996). “In the First Circuit, 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(5) is read as a blanket disqualification of felons for jury service, United States v.”
United States v. Grisham, 841 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. Ala. 1994). “18 U.S.C.S. § 1865 (b)(2). At least to the degree that a greater rate of illiteracy among blacks accounts for a lower questionnaire return rate, it is a factor recognized in the law as being acceptable.”
United States v. Brummitt, 503 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Tex. 1980). “18 U.S.C. § 1865 (b). Defendant has produced no evidence as to how many of the 204,349 Spanish-surnamed persons residing in the El Paso Division additionally meet the other criteria set forth in the statute.”
United States v. Hill, 853 F. Supp. 1154 (N.D. Cal. 1994). “§ 921 (defining firearms) and 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (defining serious bodily injury).”
United States v. Coronell-Leon, 973 F. Supp. 1094 (D. Neb. 1997). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) (7 ); United States v.”
United States v. Carmichael, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2006). “36 It is certainly true, as the government argues, that census data may overrepre-sent eligible jurors to the extent that the data, even when refined to control for citizenship and age, as has been done here, still include persons ineligible for service on account of residency,…”
United States v. Carey, No. 2025-0251 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026). “13(a)(3); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (a) (violations of those regulations are misdemeanors); ECF No.”
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.