18 U.S.C. § 953
Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Philip Agee v. Edmund S. Muskie, Sec'y of State, 629 F.2d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Philip Agee v. Edmund S. Muskie, Sec'y of State, 629 F.2d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “(1) Forbidden Intercourse with Foreign Governments (The Logan Act), 18 U.S.C. §§ 953 , 11. This and the three remaining offenses are based on the affidavits filed in this Court.”
United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “Specifically, he claims that his detailed defense counsel were prohibited by law, the Logan Act, 18 USC § 953 (1982), and by military regulation, U.”
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956). “States are barred by the Constitution from entering into treaties and by 18 U. S. C. § 953 from correspondence or intercourse with foreign governments with relation to their disputes or controversies with this Nation.”
United States v. Andrew M. Harvey, III, 2 F.3d 1318 (3rd Cir. 1993). “§ 1903(a) (proscribing drug activities aboard a vessel of the United States no matter where vessel located); 18 U.S.C. § 953 (1988) (prohibiting “[a]ny citizen of the United States, wherever he may he,” from corresponding with any foreign government with intent to influence its…”
Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). “He is specifically charged by defendants with having violated five criminal statutes: the Logan Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 953 ), the mail fraud statute ( 18 U.”
United States v. Harvey I. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1984). “Count IV charged him with private correspondence with a foreign government with intent to influence that government’s dispute with the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 953 (1982). The maximum penalty for this offense was three years in prison and a $5,000 fine, or both.”
Coplin v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 115 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “Of course, defendant alone is in a position to solicit and present the official view of Panama.”
United States v. Murphy, 30 M.J. 1040 (1990). “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL The appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings due to an erroneous interpretation of the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. § 953 (1982), and US Army Europe Regulation 550-56: Foreign Countries…”
United States v. Murphy, 36 M.J. 1137 (1993). “1986) AND 18 U.S.C. § 953 , LOGAN ACT, PRECLUDED APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM EFFECTIVELY AND ZEALOUSLY REPRESENTING APPELLANT AS WELL AS DENYING HIM DUE PROCESS.”
United States v. Elliott, 266 F. Supp. 318 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). “1964) wherein this Court held vital a previously unenforced section of the Logan Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 953 ) promulgated in 1799. Indeed, "The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.”
United States v. Peace Info. Ctr., 97 F. Supp. 255 (D.D.C. 1951). “18 U.S.C.A. § 953 . 10 . McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat.”
ITT World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 699 F.2d 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. § 953 (1976), prohibits unauthorized “correspondence or intercourse” by United States citizens with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or…”
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.