Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals

CourtDepartment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
DecidedJanuary 19, 1993
StatusPublished

This text of Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals (Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals, (olc 1993).

Opinion

Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals

Under 28 U S.C. § 562, the A ttorney General may make two or m ore successive designations o f a person to serve as interim United States m arshal in a judicial district where the m arshal’s office is vacant

A fter the expiration o f an initial designation o f a United States m arshal under 28 U.S C § 562, the Attorney General m ay authorize a person to act as m arshal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510.

January 19, 1993

M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n for t h e A s s is t a n t to the At t o rn e y G eneral O f f ic e of the A tto rn ey G eneral

This memorandum responds to your request for our opinion whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 562, the Attorney General may make tw o or more successive designations of a person to serve as interim United States marshal in a judicial district where the marshal’s office is vacant.1 You have also asked whether, after the expiration o f an initial designation under § 562, the Attorney General may authorize a person to act as marshal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510. W e conclude that § 562 permits the A t­ torney General to make successive interim designations, and that the Attorney General also may authorize a person to act as marshal under §§ 509 and 510.

I.

You have advised us that, in several judicial districts, deputy marshals were serving or are serving as interim marshals, pursuant to designations made under 28 U.S.C. § 5 6 2 , and delegations under 28 U.S.C. § 5 1 0 . The designations, under § 562, of some of these interim marshals expired thirty days after the end of the

1 28 U S.C § 562 provides., (a) In the case of a vacancy in the office of a United Stales marshal, the Attorney General may designate a person to perform the functions of and act as marshal, except that the Attorney Gen­ eral may not designate to act as marshal any person who was appointed by the President to that office but with respect to such appointment the Senate has refused to give its advice and consent. (b) A person designated by the Attorney General under subsection (a) may serve until the earli­ est of the following events: (1) The entry into office of a United Slates marshal appoinied by the President, pursuant to section 561(c) (2) The expiration of the thirtieth day following the end of the next session of the Sen­ ate (3) If such designee of ;he Attorney General is appointed by the President pursuant to section 561(c), but the S enne refuses to give its advice and consent to the appointment, the expiration of the thirtieth day following such refusal

1 Opinions o f the O ffice o f L egal C ounsel

second session o f the Senate for th e 102nd Congress. Other interim designations will expire thirty days after the en d of the current session o f the Senate.2 Faced with the prospect that a new marshal would not have entered into office by the ex­ piration date o f som e o f the interim designations, the Attorney General issued or­ ders redesignating the same deputies as interim marshals and delegating to them authority to act as m arshals. If this situation recurs, the Attorney General wishes to pursue a sim ilar course, redesignating the same deputy marshal, or another deputy marshal, to serve as interim marshal and delegating appropriate authority to that person. N one o f the designees has been, or will have been, appointed a marshal by the President, and refused advice and consent by the Senate.

II.

Section 562 grants the Attorney General authority, subject to specific eligibility lim itations, to “designate a person to perform the functions o f and act as marshal” when the office of marshal is vacant. W hile the marshal vacancy statute imposes limits on the authority it grants to the Attorney General, the language of the statute is com patible with a grant of authority to make successive designations.3 The stat­ ute does not explicitly bar the A ttorney General from issuing a new designation when a previous one expires.4 W e hesitate to read such a limitation into the stat­ ute. Doing so could lead to serious gaps in the United States M arshals Service’s legal authority to perform its vital duties, including its “primary role and mission” o f “provid[ing] for the security” o f the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 566(a). For any num ber o f reasons, a new marshal may not yet have taken office when an interim m arshal’s designation expires. T he President may not have submitted a nominee to the Senate; the Senate may fail to act on the nomination, or may reject it. If the Senate is in recess on the date an interim m arshal’s designation terminates w ithout a new m arshal’s having taken office, the President may exercise his con­ stitutional authority to make a recess appointm ent to the vacant marshal position.

2 We interpret the phrase "end of the next session o f the Senate,” in 28 U S.C. § 562(b)(2), to have the same meaning as the nearly identical phrase in the Recess Appointments Clause, U.S. Const, art. II, § 2, cl 3, that is, the adjournment sine die of the session of the Senate for the first session of Congress that begins after the designation was made. See Recess Appointments, 41 Op. A tfy Gen 463, 469-71 (I960), Recess Appointm ents Issues, 6 Op. O L C. 585, 586-87 (1982) Thus, interim marshal designations made during the first session of the 102nd Congress expired thirty days after the adjournment of the Senate si/ie die for the second session of the 102nd Congress. Designations made during the second session of the 102nd Congress will term inate, under § 562(b)(2), thirty days after the adjournment of the Senate sine die for the first session o f the 103rd Congress, probably November o r December, 1993 3 The first rule of statutory construction is to look to the language o f the statute. See, e.g., Pennsylvania D e p ’t o f Pub Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 557-58 (1990), Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 (1979); Greyhound Corp v M l. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U S. 322, 330 (1978) 4 The legislative history does not address the situation in which an interim appointment has automatically term inated without a permanent marshal’s having entered into office. It says little more than that § 562 “provide[s] for the appointment of an Acting Marshal by the Attorney General” and “also assures the tempo­ rary nature of such interim appointments . . by providing for the automatic termination of such interim appointm ents ” 134 Cong. Rec. 32,709 ( 1988)

2 A u th o rity o f the A tto rn ey G eneral to M ake Successive D esignations o f Interim U nited States M arshals

U.S. Const, art. II, § 2, cl. 3. But the Senate will not necessarily be in recess on the thirtieth day following the end of its session, or following its refusal to give advice and consent to an appointment. In such circumstances, § 562, if construed as per­ mitting only a single exercise of the authority to designate an interim marshal, would provide no mechanism for conferring upon anyone the authority to perform the functions of a marshal in a district where the m arshal’s office is vacant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
442 U.S. 560 (Supreme Court, 1979)
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena of Alphonse Persico
522 F.2d 41 (Second Circuit, 1975)
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
673 F. Supp. 1138 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Bruzzone v. Hampton
433 F. Supp. 92 (S.D. New York, 1977)
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
671 F. Supp. 5 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Authority of the Attorney General to Make Successive Designations of Interim United States Marshals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/authority-of-the-attorney-general-to-make-successive-designations-of-olc-1993.