In re Neagle
|In re Neagle|
|Argued March 4–5, 1890
Decided April 14, 1890
|Full case name||In re David Neagle|
|Citations||135 U.S. 1 (more)
10 S. Ct. 658; 34 L. Ed. 55; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2006
|Prior history||Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California|
|Section 3 of Art. II of the U.S. Constitution requires that the Executive Branch "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The court determined that the appointment of bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices ensured the faithful execution of the law of the United States. The court also relied on a statute granting marshals "the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs and their deputies in such State may have, by law, in executing the laws thereof."|
|Majority||Miller, joined by Bradley, Harlan, Gray, Blatchford, Brewer|
|Dissent||Lamar, joined by Fuller|
|Field took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 788 of the Revised Statutes of the United States|
In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Attorney General of the United States was authorized to appoint U.S. Marshals as bodyguards to federal judges.
U.S. Marshal David B. Neagle (1847-1925) was appointed by the United States Attorney General to serve as Justice Stephen J. Field's bodyguard while Field rode circuit in California. On 14 August 1889, David S. Terry approached Field inside the Lathrop, California train station in California's San Joaquin Valley. Terry, a former California Supreme Court justice, had a grudge with Field. Fearing Terry was about to attack Field, Neagle shot and killed Terry. Field and Neagle were arrested by the San Joaquin Sheriff, Thomas Cunningham. Cunningham later released Field on his own recognizance but took Neagle to jail.
The United States Attorney in San Francisco filed a writ of habeas corpus for Neagle's release. The circuit court issued the writ after a hearing and ordered Neagle's release. Sheriff Cunningham, with the aid of the State of California, appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-2 decision (Justice Field abstained), the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. The decision was a significant expansion of executive authority because there was no specific law authorizing the President to provide protection to federal judges.
- In re, the legal term
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 135
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
- In re Neagle at oyez.org