In Re Neagle

135 U.S. 1 (1890), argued 4–5 Mar. 1890, decided 14 Apr. 1890 by vote of 6 to 2; Miller for the Court, Lamar in dissent, Field not participating. Justice Stephen J. Field had provoked the hostility of David Terry, a popular lawyer and the justice's former colleague on the California Supreme Court, by a circuit court opinion invalidating the previous marriage of Terry's wife. When Field returned to California for circuit duty in 1889, he was accompanied by David Neagle, a federal marshal assigned to him. When Terry encountered Field and assaulted him, Neagle shot and killed the assailant. Charged with murder under California law, Neagle sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal circuit court. Judge Lorenzo Sawyer, who had participated with Field in the decision invalidating Mrs. Terry's marriage, granted the writ.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether a federal court could make a definitive determination of justifiable homicide and thereby preempt the operation of California law. Federal legislation authorized a writ of habeas corpus if the person was held in violation of federal law, which had been understood to mean a statute. To rescue Neagle from the uncertainties of California justice, the Court now defined “law” to include acts done under the authority of the United States. The dissenters condemned this expansion of federal power for its intrusion into the domain of state criminal law.

See also Federalism.

— John E. Semonche

In Re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court asserted federal supremacy over state law. President Benjamin Harrison had directed David Neagle, a deputy U.S. marshal, to protect Justice Stephen J. Field of the Supreme Court against a death threat. Neagle shot and killed would-be assassin David S. Terry as Terry made a murderous assault on Field in California. Arrested by state authorities and charged with murder, Neagle was brought before the federal circuit court on a writ of habeas corpus and released on the ground that he was being held in custody for "an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States." His release was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Bibliography

Kens, Paul. Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997.

In re Neagle
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 4 – 5, 1890 Decided April 14, 1890
Full case name: In re David Neagle Citations: 135 U.S. 1; 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
Holding
Section 2 of Art. III 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."
Court membership
Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Associate Justices: Stephen Johnson Field, Joseph Philo Bradley, John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Samuel Blatchford, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II, David Josiah Brewer
Case opinions
Majority by: Miller Joined by: Bradley, Harlan, Gray, Blatchford, Brewer Dissent by: Lamar Joined by: Fuller Field took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 788 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the Attorney General of the United States had authority to appoint U.S. Marshals as bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices.

Facts

U.S. Marshal David Neagle was appointed by the attorney general to serve as a bodyguard to Justice Stephen Field while he rode circuit in California. When David S. Terry, a disappointed litigant with a grudge against Field, approached and appeared to be about to attack Field, Neagle shot and killed him. Neagle was arrested by California authorities on a charge of murder. The United States sought to secure the release of Neagle on a writ of habeas corpus. In the absence of a law specifically authorizing the appointment of bodyguards for Supreme Court Justices, the government relied on a statute that made the writ available to those "in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States."

External links

• In Re Neagle at oyez.org

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)