18 U.S.C. § 592

Troops at polls

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States from exercising the right of suffrage in any election district to which he may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State in which he offers to vote.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1972–2010 · leading case: Greer v. Spock

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Greer v. Spock (1976) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 1972 ; a military officer may not have troops under his control at any place where a general or special election is held, 18 U. S. C. § 592 . See also Army Reg. 600-20 (1971); Army Reg.”

Laird v. Tatum (1972) scotus · cites it 2× “" Two statutes, passed as a result of Reconstruction Era military abuses, prohibit military interference in civilian elections: 18 U. S. C. § 592 : "Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States,…”

Nichols v. Kansas Political Action Committee (2000) kan “The majority’s decision in Buckley does not support Nichols’ contention that the CFA contribution limitations are unconstitutional, with or without a private cause of action.”

United States v. William Marvin Acree (1972) ca10 “The statute under which defendant was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 656 , uses the term whoever “willfully misapplies” any monies etc.”

Bissonette v. Haig (1985) ca8 “18 U.S.C. §§ 592 , 593. . M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention 209 (1911), quoted in Laird v.”

United States v. Geddes (2010) ca10 “Nevertheless, for the benefit of the district court, we note the judgment appears to contain a simple clerical error with regard to Geddes’s failure-to-appear conviction.”

Application of 18 U.S.C. § 603 to Activities in the White House Involving the President (1979) olc “Therefore, I hereby notify the C ourt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 592 (b) that I find the m atter is so unsubstantiated that no further investigation or prosecution is warranted, and that no special prosecutor should be appointed.”

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.