Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

In re Neagle

Supreme Court of the United States · 1890 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawfederal supremacyhabeas corpusexecutive powerfederal officershabeas corpusRevised Statutes § 753Revised Statutes § 761

Facts

After bitter litigation involving Justice Field and repeated threats by David S. Terry and Mrs. Terry, federal officials became concerned that Justice Field would be attacked while performing judicial duties in California. The Attorney General, district attorney, and marshal corresponded about protecting Field, and the marshal assigned Neagle to guard him. While Field and Neagle were traveling, Terry assaulted Justice Field, and Neagle, believing prompt action was necessary to prevent Field's death, shot and killed Terry. California authorities then held Neagle on a murder charge.

Issue

Whether a United States deputy marshal who killed an assailant while protecting a Justice of the Supreme Court in the discharge of judicial duties was acting in pursuance of a law of the United States, so that federal habeas corpus could discharge him from state custody. More broadly, the question was whether the federal government had authority to protect a federal judge and immunize the officer who used necessary force in carrying out that protection.

Rule

Under the federal habeas statutes, a prisoner must be discharged if he is held for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States or in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The federal government has authority, derived from the Constitution, the President's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and statutes governing marshals, to protect federal judges in the discharge of official duties; when a marshal, acting under that authority, does no more than is necessary and proper to prevent a threatened deadly assault, he is not liable to state prosecution for that act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, a United States deputy marshal was assigned by the marshal, after consultation with the Department of Justice, to accompany a federal district judge who had received repeated credible death threats tied to a pending federal corruption trial. At a train platform, an assailant lunged toward the judge with a raised metal spike, and the deputy shot the assailant after concluding there was no time to use lesser force; Illinois authorities arrested the deputy for murder.

If the deputy petitions for federal habeas corpus while in state custody, what is the strongest basis for discharge?

Explanation. The majority held that federal habeas relief is available when a prisoner is in custody for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States. It also held that the national government may protect federal judges in the discharge of official duties, and that a marshal or deputy acting under that authority is protected if he does no more than is necessary and proper to prevent a threatened deadly assault. No statute specifically naming this exact protective assignment is required.