18 U.S.C. § 7
No services, equipment, or facilities may be ordered, purchased, leased, or otherwise procured for the purposes of carrying out the duties of the Secret Service by persons other than officers or employees of the Federal Government duly authorized by the Director to make such orders, purchases, leases, or procurements.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 507
cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: United States v. Johnny Smith
United States v. Johnny Smith (2019)
“The panel held that the ACA applies to Indian country, by operation of both 18 U.S.C. § 7 (concerning land “reserved or acquired for the use of the United States” and “under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof”) and the ICCA (concerning “federal enclave” laws).”
United States v. Gabrion (2008)
“§ 1111 (a), at a location within the federal government's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 7 (3), which is a capital felony under 18 U.”
United States v. Martinelli (2005)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 7 (2000). That term of art has been the subject of different interpretations as to its extraterritorial reach, particularly whether it extends to lands within the territory of a sovereign foreign nation.”
United States v. Goodwin (1982)
“One count of "failing to give aid at the scene of an accident," in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 7 , 13, Md. Transp. Code Ann.”
United States v. Abu Khatallah (2016)
“§ 1363 , the statute criminalizing those actions, and 18 U.S.C. § 7 , the statute defining the SMTJ.”
United States v. Clifton S. Corey (2000)
“Both provisions proscribe sexual assault within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” a phrase defined by 18 U.S.C. § 7 . While Corey lived in Japan, he and his family resided on the Yokota Air Force Base.”
United States v. Milton Gatlin (2000)
“Following oral argument on the motion, Judge Amon concluded, in a ruling from the bench, that Lincoln Village was within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7 (3) and that the Court therefore had jurisdiction over…”
United States v. Holmes (2012)
“OPINION AGEE, Circuit Judge: Darrell Walter Holmes appeals his conviction in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 2241(c). Holmes challenges the district court’s pretrial…”
United States v. Dixon (2001)
“BACKGROUND A grand jury indicted Dixon on five counts: (1) robbing Janet Shahan by force, violence, and intimidation ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 (3) and 2111); (2) attempting to rob David Dyer by force, violence, and intimidation ( 18 U.”
United States v. Passaro (2009)
“Most fundamentally, Passaro challenges our subject matter jurisdiction over the crimes alleged against him.”
United States v. Ahmed Abukhatallah (2022)
“17–18; see 18 U.S.C. § 7 (defining the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”).”
United States v. James Wells (2017)
“The Indictment and Wells’ Representation Approximately ten months after the murders, on February 19, 2013, Wells was indicted on the following six counts: Counts 1 and 2, murder in the first degree, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 (3) and 1111(a), (b); Counts 3 and 4, murder of…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 7(3) — 6 cases
United States v. Bin Laden (2000)
United States v. Bello (1999)
United States v. Robson (2005)
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.