Democrats propose shifting US Marshals from executive to judicial control, claiming it would protect judicial independence, while opponents view it as a politically motivated power grab designed to limit presidential authority.
At a Glance
- Senate Democrats plan to introduce legislation transferring the US Marshals Service from the Department of Justice to the court system
- The chief justice would appoint the US Marshals Service director and marshals for each judicial district
- Proponents claim the change would insulate marshals from political interference
- Threats against federal judges have reportedly tripled between 2019 and 2023
- The bill faces significant hurdles in a GOP-controlled Congress
Democrats Push for Judicial Control of US Marshals
Senate Democrats are advancing legislation that would fundamentally alter the structure of the US Marshals Service by transferring its control from the Department of Justice to the judicial branch. The proposed bill, led by Senator Cory Booker, would create a US Marshals Board comprised of the chief justice of the Supreme Court and other Judicial Conference members. This board would oversee the agency that has been responsible for protecting federal judges and courthouses since 1789. The legislation represents a significant departure from the traditional separation of powers that has governed the marshals service throughout American history.
“Since 1789, the U.S. Marshals have valiantly protected our nation’s judges and enforced court orders. But their dual accountability to the executive branch and the judicial branch paves the way toward a constitutional crisis.”, said Sen. Cory Booker.
Under the proposed structure, the chief justice would have authority to select both the US Marshals Service director and individual marshals for each judicial district. This would mark a dramatic shift from the current system where these positions fall under executive branch authority.
Democrats supporting the measure argue that this change is necessary to prevent potential political interference, particularly from the Trump administration. Critics view the legislation as a partisan attempt to strip presidential powers rather than a genuine effort to improve judicial security.
Rising Threats Against Judiciary Cited as Motivation
Proponents of the legislation point to a significant increase in threats against federal judges as justification for the change. According to reports, the US Marshals Service has seen threat investigations triple from 2019 to 2023. Notable incidents include threats against judges involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol events and a case involving a threat against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. These statistics have been used to argue that the current system is inadequate for protecting the judiciary in an increasingly polarized political environment.
“To ensure these necessary functions are carried out, Congress must act to move the bureau into the judicial branch. Our U.S. Marshals are critical to protecting the rule of law, and they must be able to do their jobs without political interference.”, added Sen. Booker.
Democrats have specifically cited President Trump’s social media criticisms of judges and rulings as potentially endangering the judiciary. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has claimed the bill would prevent the administration from using the agency to intimidate opponents. The White House has firmly denied accusations of defying court orders, with spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stating, “We will continue to comply with these court orders.” This dispute highlights the partisan tensions surrounding the proposed legislation.
Political Realities and Constitutional Questions
Despite Democratic support, the legislation faces significant challenges in a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans view the proposal as politically motivated rather than a genuine effort to improve judicial security or independence. Some have noted that allegations of the Trump administration using US Marshals to harass individuals lack substantiating evidence. The bill also raises important constitutional questions about separation of powers and whether such a substantial reorganization would create more problems than it solves.
Critics of the legislation suggest that Democrats are attempting to insulate certain institutions from executive oversight while claiming government weaponization against them. Some commentators have noted apparent inconsistencies in concerns about government weaponization, depending on which political party perceives itself as the target. The debate touches on fundamental questions about governmental structure and accountability that extend beyond the immediate political moment to considerations about long-term institutional stability.
The US Marshals Service, America’s oldest federal law enforcement agency, finds itself at the center of a power struggle that reflects broader tensions about executive authority and judicial independence. As the legislation moves forward, lawmakers will need to weigh concerns about political interference against the practical and constitutional implications of fundamentally realigning an agency that has operated under executive authority for over two centuries.
