MARSHALS Act Moves Federal Law Enforcement Agency Under Judicial Control, Shifting Power from DOJ to Chief Justice

The MARSHALS Act (Maintaining Authority and Restoring Security to Halt the Abuse of Law) is a massive structural shake-up for one of the oldest federal law enforcement agencies: the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). If passed, this bill completely pulls the USMS out of the Executive Branch and the Department of Justice (DOJ), placing it squarely under the control of the Judicial Branch.

The Judicial Takeover: New Boss, New Rules

Currently, the USMS operates under the Attorney General and the DOJ, which is standard for federal law enforcement. The MARSHALS Act flips this script by establishing the USMS as an official bureau under the Judicial Branch. This isn't just an administrative change; it’s a fundamental shift in who holds the power. Instead of the President appointing the Director, the Chief Justice of the United States will appoint both the USMS Director and the U.S. Marshal for every judicial district, including the District of Columbia. These appointments happen after consulting with a new Oversight Board, which includes the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference. This means that for the first time, a major federal law enforcement agency would report directly to the Judiciary.

For the average person, this change is about accountability and focus. The USMS is primarily responsible for protecting federal judges, court staff, witnesses, and transporting prisoners—all functions directly supporting the courts. By moving the USMS entirely under the Judiciary, the bill aims to streamline those security operations, making the protection of the judicial process its undisputed priority. If you’re a federal court employee, this could mean faster, more tailored security responses.

DOJ Loses Command and Control

The bill systematically strips the Attorney General of key powers over the Marshals. Under the new structure, the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Board, takes over determining expenses for the Service. More importantly, when the Attorney General needs the USMS to assist the DOJ—say, with a complex fugitive investigation—that request now requires approval from the USMS Director. This is a significant check on the Executive Branch’s operational flexibility, essentially giving the USMS Director veto power over their assistance requests. This could complicate joint operations, especially those involving the FBI or DEA, which rely on the Marshals for certain tasks like fugitive recovery.

New Tools and New Concerns

The MARSHALS Act also grants the USMS specific new law enforcement powers. Under the new authority, the Service can issue administrative subpoenas (a powerful investigative tool) specifically to investigate people who have failed to register as sex offenders. They also gain specific authority to investigate fugitives both inside and outside the U.S. as directed by the Attorney General (provided the Director approves).

While expanded powers to track down non-compliant sex offenders sound beneficial, the structural rearrangement raises serious questions about power concentration. Law enforcement agencies traditionally belong in the Executive Branch because that branch is designed for operational accountability. Moving a law enforcement agency with arrest powers, investigative authority, and the ability to issue subpoenas into the Judicial Branch—which is designed for adjudication and neutrality—is a major constitutional shift. It concentrates significant security and law enforcement management authority under the Chief Justice, potentially blurring the lines between the branches and how the USMS is held accountable to the public.