28 U.S.C. § 561
United States Marshals Service
A prior section 561, added Pub. L. 89–554, § 4(c),
2006—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 109–177 added subsec. (i).
2002—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 107–273 struck out subsec. (i) which read as follows: “There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Service.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Gov't of the Dist. of Columbia, 734 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Johnson v. Gov't of the Dist. of Columbia, 734 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “4181 , 4512–15 (1988) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 561–569), two United States Marshals serve the District of Columbia.”
Johnson v. Gov't of the Dist. of Columbia, 584 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). “(codified at 28 U.S.C. § 561 (a)). At the same time, Congress created the totally-new position of the Superior Court Marshal.”
Pennsylvania Bureau of Corr. v. United States Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (1985). “Because I believe that the District Court's order in this case was fully consistent with the historic relationship between the federal court and the federal marshal, I respectfully dissent.”
Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010). “Because the Marshals Service is part of the Department of Justice, 28 U.S.C. § 561 , it should have ready access to the necessary information.”
Matthew Chabal, Jr. v. Ronald Reagan, 841 F.2d 1216 (3rd Cir. 1988). “28 U.S.C. § 561 (a). Chabal was appointed to the Middle District position in 1982.”
Logsdon v. United States Marshal Serv., 91 F.4th 1352 (10th Cir. 2024). “Moreover, the USMS is a bureau within the Department of Justice (DOJ), see 28 U.S.C. § 561 (a), and the DOJ Inspector General “may investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing or administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of Justice,” 5 U.”
Lyles v. Hughes, 83 F. Supp. 3d 315 (D.D.C. 2015). “The USMS is a bureau within the United States Department of Justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 561 (a), and the United States Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, id.”
W. Foster Sellers v. United States of Am., 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1990). “Because the Marshals Service is part of the Department of Justice, 28 U.S.C. § 561 , it should have ready access to the necessary information.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Ramon MATTA-BALLESTEROS, Defendant-Appellant, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995). “C. § 566 (e)(1). The marshals are given no authority to abduct wanted persons from a foreign country.”
United States v. J.C. Herbert Bryant, Jr., 117 F.3d 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “” 28 U.S.C. § 561 (f). 1 He has no statutory authority to appoint anyone other than a Marshals Service employee or official as an “officer” of any kind.”
Chabal v. Reagan, 822 F.2d 349 (3rd Cir. 1987). “Facts In 1982, Chabal was appointed to a four-year term as the marshal for the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 561 . 1 On October 4,1985, prior to the expiration of his term, Chabal received a letter from defendant Robert Tuttle, Deputy Assistant to the…”
United States v. Victor Guy Johnson, 196 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1999). “28 U.S.C. § 561 (c). . 28 U.S.C. § 561 (g).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 561(b) — 1 case
Louis Harold Martin v. George Tobin, 451 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1971).
— 28 U.S.C. § 561(f) — 1 case
United States v. Dyke Hoy, 137 F.3d 726 (2d Cir. 1998).
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.