Marshals Service

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares107 Views

    Judges Worry Trump Could Tell U.S. Marshals to Stop Protecting Them

    by

    The marshals are in an increasingly bitter conflict between two branches of government, even as funding for judges’ security has failed to keep pace with a steady rise in threats.On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. It was the first time the conference met since President Trump retook the White House.In the midst of discussions of staffing levels and long-range planning, the judges’ conversations were focused, to an unusual degree, on rising threats against judges and their security, said several people who attended the gathering.Behind closed doors at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the chairman of the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised a scenario that weeks before would have sounded like dystopian fiction, according to three officials familiar with the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations: What if the White House were to withdraw the protections it provides to judges?The U.S. Marshals Service, which by law oversees security for the judiciary, is part of the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump is directly controlling in a way that no president has since the Watergate scandal.Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump had stripped security protections from Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his former national security adviser. Could the federal judiciary, also a recent target of Mr. Trump’s ire, be next?Judge Sullivan, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and then elevated to an appellate judgeship by Mr. Trump, referred questions about his closed-door remarks to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated its “complete confidence in those responsible for judicial security.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      This Is What the Courts Can Do if Trump Defies Them

      by

      Are we heading toward a full-blown constitutional crisis? For the first time in decades, the country is wrestling with this question. It was provoked by members of the Trump administration, including Russell Vought, the influential director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, who have hinted or walked right up to the edge of saying outright that officials should refuse to obey a court order against certain actions of the administration. President Trump has said he would obey court orders — though on Saturday he posted on social media, “He who saves his country does not violate any law.”Some have argued that if the administration is defiant there is little the courts can do. But while the courts do not have a standing army, there are actually several escalating measures they can take to counter a defiant executive branch.The fundamental principle of the rule of law is that once the legal process, including appeals and stay applications, has reached completion, public officials must obey an order of the courts. This country’s constitutional traditions are built on, and depend upon, that understanding.A profound illustration is President Richard Nixon’s compliance with the Supreme Court decision requiring him to turn over the secret White House tape recordings he had made, even though Nixon knew that doing so would surely end his presidency.If the Trump administration ignores a court order, it would represent the start of a full-blown constitutional crisis.The courts rarely issue binding orders to the president, so these orders are not likely to be directed at President Trump personally. His executive orders and other commands are typically enforced by subordinate officials in the executive branch, and any court order — initially, it would come from the Federal District Court — would be directed at them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Marshal Shoots Man in Attempted Carjacking Near Sotomayor’s Home

      by

      The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle near the Supreme Court justice’s home when a man approached the vehicle and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.A U.S. marshal on a Supreme Court security detail shot and wounded an armed man who tried to carjack him early Friday near Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in northwest Washington, according to court documents.The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle when a silver Toyota minivan pulled over next to him, according to court documents. A man, identified in the documents as Kentrell Flowers, 18, exited the van, approached the marshal and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.The marshal drew his gun and fired at Mr. Flowers through the window four times, hitting him in the mouth, according to the court documents. A second U.S. marshal from another vehicle also responded and fired his weapon, according to the Metropolitan Police Department.The first marshal provided first aid to Mr. Flowers, who was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. Mr. Flowers was charged with armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large-capacity ammunition-feeding device.The driver of the minivan, which had been carjacked, fled the scene. The Metropolitan Police Department opened an investigation into the episode, which occurred in the Shaw neighborhood.The marshals “involved in the shooting incident were part of the unit protecting the residences of U.S. Supreme Court justices,” a spokeswoman for the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. “As a general practice, the U.S. Marshals don’t discuss specifics of protective details.”Carjackings are down nearly 50 percent this year compared with the same period last year, according to the crime data from the Metropolitan Police Department. Following a national trend, the overall crime rate in the District of Columbia is down 17 percent compared with last year. More