31 U.S.C. § 1342
Limitation on voluntary services
An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. This section does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government. As used in this section, the term “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: The Cessna Aircraft Co. v. John H. Dalton, Sec'y of Navy, 126 F.3d 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Cessna Aircraft Co. v. John H. Dalton, Sec'y of Navy, 126 F.3d 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Requiring Cessna to perform services in the absence of a contractual obligation would violate the prohibition against voluntary services set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 1342 . 16 In this case, Cessna contends, such services included providing the support needed in order to fly aircraft…”
United States v. Daniel Trevino, 7 F.4th 414 (6th Cir. 2021). “31 U.S.C. § 1342 . No. 20-1104 United States v.”
Martin v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 578 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “31 U.S.C. § 1342 (2012); ECF No. 151 at 3.”
Jacqueline R. Sims, AKA Jrs Staffing Servs. v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 808 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Having reviewed the complaint, plaintiffs motion, and plaintiffs reply brief, the implied alleged violation might concern certain provisions of § 1341, but also might concern 31 U.S.C. § 1342 (2006), a separate but related provision of the Act.”
Martin v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 611 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “” 31 U.S.C. § 1342 . The employees who were required to work during the government shutdown “necessarily included prison guards, Federal air marshals, border patrols, and others,” Def.”
Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr, 391 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “" 31 U.S.C. § 1342 . 2. The Regulation of Alcohol Labels The Federal Alcohol Administration Act ("FAA Act"), 27 U.”
United States v. State of Texas, 97 F.4th 268 (5th Cir. 2024). “Congress explained that it adopted this provision out of concern that state-federal cooperation agreements would otherwise have been precluded by 31 U.S.C. § 1342 , which generally bars the United States from accepting “voluntary services.”
People for the Ethical Treatment Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 912 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “” 31 U.S.C. § 1342 . Given the current lapse of appropriations, this provision would seem to bar the Acting Attorney General from dispatching Department of Justice attorneys to defend this appeal.”
PCL Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 242 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “31 U.S.C. § 1342 (1994). In addition to these statutes, plaintiff cites the rule which provides that annual appropriations may be used only to meet the “bona fide” needs of the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made: § 1502.”
Suss v. Am. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 823 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “For example, 31 U.S.C. § 1342 provides that an “officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for…”
Leonard v. United States Dep't of Def., 38 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2014). “(Count I), and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Counts II—IV) when, pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1342 , they prevented Father Leonard from performing his ecclesiastical duties, even voluntarily, during the recent government shutdown.”
City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 264 F. Supp. 3d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2017). “1357(g)(6) and 31 U.S.C. § 1342 . Docket no, 139. The Court does not find it necessary, at this juncture, to reach this claim.”
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.