MARSHALS Act Moves Federal Law Enforcement to Judicial Branch: Chief Justice Gains Power Over USMS

The Maintaining Authority and Restoring Security to Halt the Abuse of Law, or MARSHALS Act, is looking to pull off a major structural shake-up in Washington. This bill completely yanks the United States Marshals Service (USMS)—the oldest federal law enforcement agency—out of the Executive Branch (where the Department of Justice currently holds it) and plants it firmly inside the Judicial Branch. This move means the USMS would no longer report to the Attorney General, but rather to the Chief Justice of the United States, who will appoint the Director and all local U.S. Marshals in consultation with a new Oversight Board.

The Judicial Takeover: Who’s Running the Show Now?

Think of this like a corporate restructuring, but for an armed federal agency. Under current law, the President (via the Attorney General) has the final say on the USMS. The MARSHALS Act flips this entirely. The Chief Justice, not the President or the Attorney General, would appoint the USMS Director and the U.S. Marshal for every judicial district. They serve four-year terms, and while the Chief Justice must consult a new Oversight Board on appointments and removals, the power shift is clear: the judicial branch gains direct control over a law enforcement agency. For the everyday person, this means that the federal law enforcement officers who handle court security, transport prisoners, and track fugitives would now be accountable to the judges, not the executive branch.

Security First: Protecting the Courts

One of the most concrete and beneficial changes in the bill is the explicit authorization for the USMS to handle personal protection for Federal judges, court staff, and threatened witnesses. This is a big deal for judicial security. In the past few years, threats against federal judges have increased, and this bill formalizes and strengthens the USMS’s role in protecting the integrity of the judicial process. If you’re a federal judge or court employee, this provision means you get dedicated, specialized protection that is aligned directly with the needs of the court system, rather than being managed by an agency whose primary focus is broader executive law enforcement.

Blurring the Lines: Law Enforcement Authority

While the USMS is moving to the Judicial Branch, the bill allows it to keep assisting the Department of Justice (DOJ) with specific, Executive-branch tasks, like investigating fugitives and tracking down missing children. However, this assistance requires a formal request from the Attorney General and approval from the USMS Director. This creates a new check-and-balance system, but it also raises structural questions. Placing an armed law enforcement agency under the Judicial Branch—which is supposed to interpret the law, not enforce it—is a massive shift in the separation of powers. This concentration of law enforcement authority under the Chief Justice could complicate accountability and potentially blur the constitutional lines that keep the branches separate, raising concerns about who ultimately holds the power over federal policing actions.

The Oversight Catch

The MARSHALS Act creates a new Oversight Board, composed of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Conference, and the Director (who gets a seat but no vote). This Board is supposed to set the “big goals and objectives” for the Service. While this sounds like good governance, the bill is vague on how much power this Board actually has over the Chief Justice. If the Board advises against an appointment or removal, is that advice binding, or does the Chief Justice still have the final say? The lack of clarity here means that a lot of operational power over a federal law enforcement agency would be concentrated in the hands of the Chief Justice, potentially without robust external challenge, which is something smart people should be watching closely.