In re Neagle
135 U.S. 1 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President has the executive power, acting through the Department of Justice, to protect federal judges in the performance of their duties, and an act by a federal officer in furtherance of that protection is considered an act 'in pursuance of a law of the United States' for the purposes of federal habeas corpus relief.
Facts:
- In a federal lawsuit, a decree was rendered against Sarah Althea Hill (later Mrs. Terry) and in favor of William Sharon.
- Subsequently, during a related court proceeding presided over by Supreme Court Justice Field, Mrs. Terry and her husband, David S. Terry, created a violent disturbance, which resulted in them being imprisoned for contempt of court.
- After their release, the Terrys made numerous and public threats to assault and kill Justice Field.
- Concerned for Justice Field's safety, the U.S. Attorney General directed U.S. Marshal Franks to provide him with protection while he was performing his judicial duties in California.
- Marshal Franks assigned Deputy U.S. Marshal David Neagle to serve as Justice Field's bodyguard.
- While traveling by train, Justice Field and Neagle stopped at a station restaurant for breakfast.
- David Terry entered the restaurant, approached Justice Field from behind, and struck him twice in the head.
- Neagle rose, identified himself as an officer, and when Terry appeared to reach for a weapon, Neagle shot and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- After shooting David Terry, David Neagle was arrested by the Sheriff of San Joaquin County, California, and charged with murder.
- Neagle filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of California, arguing his detention by the state was illegal.
- The Circuit Court granted the writ and, after a hearing on the facts, ordered Neagle's discharge from state custody.
- Cunningham, the Sheriff, appealed the Circuit Court's order to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court have the authority under the habeas corpus statutes to release a U.S. Deputy Marshal from state custody when he is being prosecuted for murder for an act committed while protecting a federal judge under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
Yes. A federal court has the authority to release a U.S. Deputy Marshal from state custody under such circumstances. The President's constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' grants the executive branch the inherent power to protect the federal judiciary and ensure its functions are not obstructed by violence. This duty is a 'law of the United States' in the broadest sense, and an officer acting under executive direction to fulfill this duty is acting 'in pursuance of a law of the United States' within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute. Justice Field was engaged in the discharge of his official duties while traveling between courts, and the federal government has the sovereign power to protect its officers everywhere. Therefore, Neagle's act was justified under federal authority, and he cannot be lawfully prosecuted by the state of California.
Dissenting - Justice Lamar
No. A federal court lacks the authority to interfere with the state's criminal prosecution in this case. The phrase 'law of the United States' in the habeas corpus statute refers to a specific, written statute enacted by Congress, not a general executive power or duty implied from the Constitution. No act of Congress authorized the Attorney General to appoint a bodyguard for a judge or empowered that bodyguard to use lethal force. All legislative power is vested in Congress, and the executive cannot create law. Neagle's action was a defense of a private citizen, which must be justified under state law in a state court, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to preempt that process through a writ of habeas corpus.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the scope of federal executive power and the concept of federal supremacy. By interpreting the President's duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' as an independent source of authority, the Court sanctioned executive action taken without specific congressional authorization. This created a protective shield around federal officials, allowing them to be removed from state criminal jurisdiction for acts committed within the scope of their duties. The case establishes the principle of an inherent right of the federal government to self-preservation, including the protection of its officers, and solidifies the federal judiciary's role in enforcing that right against state interference.
Unlock the full brief for In re Neagle