18 U.S.C. § 2156
Production of defective national-defense material, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities
Based on section 106 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (Apr. 20, 1918, ch. 59, § 6, as added Nov. 30, 1940, ch. 926, 54 Stat. 1221).
Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of “principal” in section 2 of this title.
Words “upon conviction thereof” were omitted as unnecessary, since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “, or” for “or” in section catchline.
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
1954—Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2016)
“Second, to the extent Caltex alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2156 as the predicate “unlawful” act, it has not alleged facts to support an inference that Lockheed acted with “intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States.”
Hutson v. Analytic Sciences Corp. (1994)
“Title 18 U.S.C. § 2156 (a). Further, Congress has enacted legislation specifically aimed at protecting employees who disclose, based upon reasonable belief, violations of federal law by their employers, particularly as they relate to defense contracts.”
United States v. Amanuel (2005)
“Title 18 U.S.C. § 2156 (2) authorizes state court judges to issue wiretaps in conformity with Title III and “the applicable State statute.”
Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (2016)
“Second, to the extent Caltex alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2156 as the predicate “unlawful” act, it has not alleged facts to support an inference that Lockheed acted with “intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States.”
Scott v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2020)
“A motion to suppress a state wiretap pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2156 (2) on the grounds Petitioner raises would have failed.”
United States v. James Perrin (2025)
“First, he argues that Title III prohibits a state’s principal prosecuting attorney from delegating their authority to apply for wiretaps, rendering the application signed by First Deputy King directly violative of 18 U.S.C. § 2156 (2).6 Second, he appeals the 4 Specifically, the…”
DeSouza v. DRS-Power Technology, Inc. (2008)
“Specifically, DeSouza cites 18 U.S.C. §2156 (a), which states: “Whoever, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States, willfully makes, constructs, or attempts to make or construct in a defective manner, any national-defense…”
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.