Home › Cases › 1851-1900 › 1889 › In re Neagle ›

In re Neagle

Media Items
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
1472
Petitioner: 
In re Neagle
Decided By: 
Fuller Court (1890)
Opinion: 
135 U.S. 1 (1890)
Argued: 
Tuesday, March 4, 1890
Decided: 
Monday, April 14, 1890
Categories: 
executive power, supremacy clause, habeas corpus, presidency, criminal

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, In re Neagle , 135 U.S. 1 (1890)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1889/1889_1472)
(last visited Monday, November 9, 2009).
Facts of the Case: 

Suspecting a plot against Justice Stephen J. Field's life, the U.S. Attorney General appointed Neagle, a U.S. Marshall, to protect him. Acting as Field's bodyguard, Neagle shot and killed a man who appeared about to attack the justice. After California officials arrested and jailed Neagle, the U.S. sought his release by a writ of habeas corpus.

Question: 

Was the state obligated to obey the writ even though no national statute empowered the Attorney General to provide judges with bodyguards?

Conclusion: 

Yes. The Court held that the Attorney General acted appropriately since assigning Neagle as Field's bodyguard assured that the nation's laws would be faithfully executed. Furthermore, Neagle's actions were consistent with a congressional statute which provided U.S. Marshalls with "the same powers, in executing the laws" as state sheriffs and deputies (who would have been allowed to deter an attack on Field's life).