Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Post History
While no court has tried it, yet, Federal Rules of Procedure 4.1 says that the courts direct enforcement through... ...a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointe...
#2: Post edited
by
John C
·
2025-04-09T21:27:54Z (5 days ago)
- While no court has *tried* it, yet, [Federal Rules of Procedure 4.1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4.1) says that the courts direct enforcement through...
- > ...a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.
The last of the three options, "a person specifically appointed," does most of the work, here.- Rule 4.1 does exclude subpoenas and summonses as handled through different rules, but [the former](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4) has similar language about a non-executive appointee, and [the latter](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) describes enforcement as anybody "at least 18 years old and not a party" to the case, indicating that the courts haven't used the Marshals for the purpose at all in a long time.
- In [*Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.*](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep481/usrep481787/usrep481787.pdf) (1987), the Supreme Court even called that out, noting in a quote that...
- > If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls 'the judicial power of the United States' would be a mere mockery.
- At least two members of the 2025 Supreme Court might disagree if it came up, but it seems fairly explicit that, if the Department of Justice refuses to enforce a ruling, or if the courts don't believe that they can trust the Marshals to enforce it, then they can empower anybody available to do the job for them.
- While no court has *tried* it, yet, [Federal Rules of Procedure 4.1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4.1) says that the courts direct enforcement through...
- > ...a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.
- The last of the three options, "a person specially appointed," does most of the work, here.
- Rule 4.1 does exclude subpoenas and summonses as handled through different rules, but [the former](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4) has similar language about a non-executive appointee, and [the latter](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) describes enforcement as anybody "at least 18 years old and not a party" to the case, indicating that the courts haven't used the Marshals for the purpose at all in a long time.
- In [*Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.*](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep481/usrep481787/usrep481787.pdf) (1987), the Supreme Court even called that out, noting in a quote that...
- > If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls 'the judicial power of the United States' would be a mere mockery.
- At least two members of the 2025 Supreme Court might disagree if it came up, but it seems fairly explicit that, if the Department of Justice refuses to enforce a ruling, or if the courts don't believe that they can trust the Marshals to enforce it, then they can empower anybody available to do the job for them.
#1: Initial revision
by
John C
·
2025-04-08T22:04:22Z (6 days ago)
While no court has *tried* it, yet, [Federal Rules of Procedure 4.1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4.1) says that the courts direct enforcement through... > ...a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose. The last of the three options, "a person specifically appointed," does most of the work, here. Rule 4.1 does exclude subpoenas and summonses as handled through different rules, but [the former](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4) has similar language about a non-executive appointee, and [the latter](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) describes enforcement as anybody "at least 18 years old and not a party" to the case, indicating that the courts haven't used the Marshals for the purpose at all in a long time. In [*Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.*](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep481/usrep481787/usrep481787.pdf) (1987), the Supreme Court even called that out, noting in a quote that... > If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls 'the judicial power of the United States' would be a mere mockery. At least two members of the 2025 Supreme Court might disagree if it came up, but it seems fairly explicit that, if the Department of Justice refuses to enforce a ruling, or if the courts don't believe that they can trust the Marshals to enforce it, then they can empower anybody available to do the job for them.