U.S. Code » Title 50 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— INTERNAL SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

50 U.S.C. § 797

Penalty for violation of security regulations and orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 50 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Misdemeanor violation of defense property security regulations(1) Misdemeanor

Whoever willfully violates any defense property security regulation shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(2) Defense property security regulation describedFor purposes of paragraph (1), a defense property security regulation is a property security regulation that, pursuant to lawful authority—(A) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the Secretary of Defense (or by a military commander designated by the Secretary of Defense or by a military officer, or a civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense, holding a senior Department of Defense director position designated by the Secretary of Defense) for the protection or security of Department of Defense property; or(B) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or security of NASA property.(3) Property security regulation describedFor purposes of paragraph (2), a property security regulation, with respect to any property, is a regulation—(A) relating to fire hazards, fire protection, lighting, machinery, guard service, disrepair, disuse, or other unsatisfactory conditions on such property, or the ingress thereto or egress or removal of persons therefrom; or(B) otherwise providing for safeguarding such property against destruction, loss, or injury by accident or by enemy action, sabotage, or other subversive actions.(4) DefinitionsIn this subsection:(A) Department of Defense property

The term “Department of Defense property” means covered property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the Department of Defense, any Department or agency of which that Department consists, or any officer or employee of that Department or agency.

(B) NASA property

The term “NASA property” means covered property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any officer or employee thereof.

(C) Covered property

The term “covered property” means aircraft, airports, airport facilities, vessels, harbors, ports, piers, water-front facilities, bases, forts, posts, laboratories, stations, vehicles, equipment, explosives, or other property or places.

(D) Regulation as including order

The term “regulation” includes an order.

(b) Posting

Any regulation or order covered by subsection (a) shall be posted in conspicuous and appropriate places.

(Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 21, 64 Stat. 1005; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1053, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3435.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to security regulations and orders and penalties for violations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: United States v. Apel, 134 S. Ct. 1144 (2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Apel, 134 S. Ct. 1144 (2014). · cites it 2× “” 50 U. S. C. §§797 (a)(2), (4); see also 32 CFR §809a.”
United States v. Roger Aarons & Robert Swann, 310 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1962). · cites it 2× “On November :8, Captain Kenner, the Submarine Force Legal Officer at New London, warned the Committee by registered letter that the submarines had been “posted” pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 797 , and that anyone boarding them would be subject to prosecution as provided by that…”
In Re Pac. Far East Line, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1970). · cites it 2× “The regulations were promulgated pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 797 , a penal statute. Under date of February 9, 1966, they were amended by the Navy operations officer by adding to Article 213 thereof a subparagraph (2) reading: “2.”
Nelson v. United States, 20 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (D. Colo. 2014). “Sec 21, Internal Security Act of 1950; 50 U.S.C. § 797 . While on this installation all personnel and the property under their control are subject to search.”
Helix Elec., Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Such an access letter may be granted by the base commander pursuant to the Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. § 797 . A prospective CATV operator must also obtain a license to use real property to construct, operate, and maintain on-base facilities.”
United States v. Alleyne, 13 M.J. 331 (1982). “In any event, we conclude that, under the rationale for border searches, an entry or exit search at the gates of an American military installation overseas is “reasonably necessary to protect national defense material, national defense premises, .”
United States v. Jon Randolph Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1973). “The requirements in paragraph 4 generally pertain to prosecutions of offenses arising under 50 U.S.C.A. § 797 and the offense of re-entry after removal under 18 U.”
United States v. Hall, 742 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “125-8 was required to be but was not published in the Federal Register, and that it applies only to military and civilian personnel assigned or attached to the base, and that it was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of the Internal Security Act, 50 U.S.C. § 797…”
United States v. Vargas, 13 M.J. 713 (1982). · cites it 2× “We disagree and affirm. I Appellant first argues that the search of his automobile was unauthorized because it was conducted pursuant to Air Station Order P 5510.”
United States v. Wickersham, 14 M.J. 404 (1983). “§§ 1382 , 1857; 50 U.S.C. § 797 . Since the providence inquiry made clear that appellant was not guilty of unlawful entry, I would set aside the plea and the findings of guilty and dismiss Charge I.”
Neenie Gilmore v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 4× “In issuing the bar, the Commanding Colonel relied on 50 U.S.C. § 797 . Id. That statute provides that it is a misdemeanor to violate agency orders regarding, as relevant here, 7 entering physical locations such as forts and bases.”
United States v. Toirov (10th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 1382 and 50 U.S.C. § 797 . The district court ordered Mr.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.