GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 2, 2003 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

United States Senate 

Subject: Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals 

This report responds to your June 6, 2002, request, with then Senators Strom 

Thurmond and Fred Thompson, for information on the appointment and 

qualifications of U.S. Marshals in the 94 federal judicial districts. As agreed with your 

offices, we obtained information on the (1) U.S. Marshals’ appointment process and, 

for comparison, the processes used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 

(ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and Internal Revenue ServiceCriminal Investigation (IRS-CI) to select senior field supervisors; (2) experience, 

education and diversity of U.S. Marshals and senior field supervisors at the ATF, 

DEA, and IRS-CI; (3) authority of the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to 

guide and control activities of U.S. Marshals; and (4) past legislative and other 

proposals for reforming the U.S. Marshals’ appointment process. 

On November 21, 2002, we briefed your offices on the results of our review. This 

report summarizes material from that briefing and provides additional information 

related to the areas reviewed. 

Background 

The U.S. Marshal Service was created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 

1789. U.S. Marshals were placed in each federal judicial district and were given broad 

authority to support the federal courts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by 

judges, Congress, and the President. Early duties of U.S. Marshals included taking the 

census, distributing presidential proclamations, protecting the borders, and making 

arrests. 

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, some responsibilities of U.S. Marshals were 

transferred to newly created federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Today, 

the primary responsibilities of U.S. Marshals include protecting federal judges and 

witnesses, transporting federal prisoners, apprehending federal fugitives, and 

managing assets seized from criminal enterprises.
Page 2 GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals

Summary 

U.S. Marshals’ Appointment Process

The process used to appoint U.S. Marshals to the federal judicial districts has not 

changed since the founding of the USMS. The President, with the advice and consent 

of the Senate, appoints U.S. Marshals for a 4-year term.1

 According to the 

Congressional Research Service, custom dictates that the President generally 

nominates an individual recommended by the Senator(s) from the state in which the 

vacancy is being filled if they are from the same party as the President. If neither 

Senator is from the same party, the President normally defers to the 

recommendations of party leaders from the state.2

Federal law does not require specific qualifications for individuals to be appointed 

U.S. Marshals. However, the USMS has developed written qualification guidelines for 

the position of U.S. Marshal and provides them to interested persons. These 

guidelines include significant experience in the administration of justice, including 

experience in law enforcement at a supervisory level, and college-level training. 

In contrast to the appointment of U.S. Marshals, the ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI all select 

their senior field supervisors under competitive, merit-based promotion criteria 

outlined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. In other words, individuals must apply and 

compete for these positions and meet any identified minimum standards. Minimum 

qualifications used to select senior field supervisors at the ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI 

varied, but all required prior supervisory law enforcement experience within their 

respective agencies. 

Experience, Education, and Diversity of U.S. Marshals and Field Supervisors at ATF, 

DEA, and IRS-CI

While the average length of overall law enforcement experience of current U.S. 

Marshals was not significantly different than that of senior field supervisors at the 

ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI, the level of government from which the experience was 

obtained differed. Specifically, as of January 2003, current U.S. Marshals averaged 23 

years of law enforcement experience, compared with 26 years at the DEA, 22 years at 

the IRS-CI, and 21 years at the ATF for senior field supervisors. However, the 

majority of law enforcement experience of U.S. Marshals was at the state, local, or 

county level, while the majority of law enforcement experience for senior field 

supervisors at the ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI was within their respective federal 

agencies.3

 We also noted differences in the amount of supervisory law enforcement 

 

1

See 28 U.S.C. Section 561. The U.S. Marshal of the U.S. Virgin Islands is appointed by the Attorney 

General. 

2

CRS Report for Congress: Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions in Executive 

Departments During the 106th Congress, 1999-2000 (March 26, 2001) 

3

 Department of Justice officials stated that local law enforcement experience of U.S. Marshals was 

advantageous since the U.S. Marshals rely heavily on local law enforcement cooperation in 

performance of their duties. 
Page 3 GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals

experience among current U.S. Marshals and senior field supervisors at the ATF, 

DEA, and IRS-CI, as shown in table 1.4 

Table 1: Comparison of U.S Marshals to ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI Regarding Law Enforcement 

 USMS ATF DEA IRS-CI

Total Number 86 20 21 35

Average years experience 23 21 26 22 

Overall years experience: 

 None 5 0 0 0 

 One to nine years 3 0 0 0 

 Ten years or more 78 20 21 35 

Prior experience: 

 With agency 22 20 21 35 

 Other federal 12 0 2 0 

 State, local, county 66 0 13 0 

 Undetermined prior experience 0 2 0 0 

Supervisory experience: 

 None 23 0 0 0 

 One year to four years 4 0 1 0 

 Five years or more 59 20 20 35 

Regarding education, 54 out of 86 (63 percent) current U.S. Marshals, as of January 

2003, had a bachelors or more advanced degree, as compared with 18 out of 20 (90 

percent) senior field supervisors at the ATF, 19 out of 21 (90 percent) senior field 

supervisors at the DEA, and all 35 (100 percent) senior field supervisors at the IRS-CI. 

We also noted some differences between the gender and race/ethnicity profiles 

among U.S. Marshals and senior field supervisors at ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI, as shown 

in table 2. 

 

4

There are 94 judicial districts; however, we did not consider 8 U.S. Marshals in our analysis because 7 

districts had an acting U.S. Marshal during the time of our review, and as noted, the Attorney General 

appoints the U.S. Marshal of the U.S. Virgin Islands. ATF has 23 Field Division Directors, however, 3 

positions were vacant at the time of our review. 
Page 4 GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals

Table 2: Comparison of U.S Marshals to ATF, DEA, and IRS-CI Regarding Education, Race, and Gender 

 USMS ATF DEA IRS-CI

Total Number 86 20 21 35

Gender: 

 Males 84 18 19 27 

 Females 2 2 2 8 

Race/Ethnicity: 

 African-American 8 4 3 8 

 American Indian 0 1 0 0 

 Asian 1 0 0 1 

 Caucasian 74 12 13 24 

 Hispanic 3 3 5 2 

Highest Level of Education: 

 High school diploma 22 0 0 0 

 Associates degree 8 0 2 0 

 Some College 2 2 0 0 

 Bachelors degree 36 17 18 28 

 Advanced degree 18 1 1 7 

USMS Director’s Authority to Guide and Control Activities of U.S. Marshals

Prior to 1970s, individual U.S. Marshals operated without any centralized management over 

their activities. Although they were placed under the general supervision of the Attorney 

General under the original legislation creating the USMS, U.S. Marshals essentially operated 

independently within their individual districts. In the early 1970s, Attorney General orders 

established the USMS as a bureau within the Department of Justice led by a Director. In 

addition, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19885

 statutorily established the USMS as a 

bureau within the DOJ, with a Director appointed by the President, with the advice 

and consent of the Senate. 

The Attorney General orders and the subsequent legislation required U.S. Marshals to 

operate within the policies and direction established by the Director. However, 

although each authorized the Director to guide and control activities of U.S. Marshals, 

neither gave the Director the authority to discipline or remove them from service. 

Only the President has the authority to discipline or remove U.S. Marshals. According 

to USMS officials, this authority has been exercised in approximately 5 cases during 

the past 12 years. 

Legislative and Other Proposals for the Reforming U.S. Marshals’ Appointment 

Process

Over the past century, Congress, along with a number of presidential commissions 

studying government reform, proposed abolishing the presidential appointment of 

 

5

Section 7608 of Title VII of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 amends 28 U.S.C. Chapter 37, sections 561 

through 569, to implement the USMS organizational changes discussed here. 
Page 5 GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals

U.S. Marshals and establishing a competitive selection process in its place. However, 

Congress has not adopted any of these recommendations. These presidential 

commissions and legislative actions include: 

• President Taft’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 1912. 

• President Roosevelt’s Commission on Administrative Management, 1937. 

• President Hoover’s two commissions on government efficiency, 1947 and 1955. 

• A bill to provide for the appointment of U.S. Marshals by the Attorney General, 

1973 (S. 1905). 

• The Justice Department Reform Act of 1975 (S. 1682). 

• Providing for consideration of a bill to provide a more effective, efficient and 

responsive government, 1993 (H. Res. 320) 

• Violent repeat offenders Act of 1994 (H.R. 3721). 

• Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review, 1993. 

• United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1995 (S. 1338). 

• United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1995 and 1996 (H.R. 2641). 

• United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1997 and 1998 (H.R. 927). 

• United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999 (H.R. 2336). 

• United States Marshals Service Reform Act of 2002 (S. 1977). 

The U.S. Marshals Service Reform Act of 2002 (S. 1977) was the latest legislative 

proposal to reform the appointment of U.S. Marshals. This bill, which was not 

enacted, would have provided for the appointment of U.S. Marshals by the Attorney 

General through the competitive civil service promotion process, as used by the ATF, 

DEA, and IRS-CI. 

The most recent presidential commission, the September 1993 Report of the National 

Performance Review, recommended elimination of the requirement for the 

presidential appointment of U.S. Marshals. The National Performance Review’s 

Accompanying Report for the Department of Justice cited concerns related to U.S. 

Marshals lacking managerial, law enforcement, and agency experience; the Director 

of the USMS lacking the authority to discipline U.S. Marshals; and the creation of an 

additional management layer under the U.S. Marshal that otherwise would not be 

needed. 

Scope and Methodology 

To address these areas, we obtained information on the U.S. Marshals’ appointment 

process from the U.S. Marshals Service and Department of Justice. We also obtained 

information from the ATF, DEA and IRS-CI on their criteria and processes for 

selecting senior field supervisors, in order to compare their selection processes with 

the appointment process of U.S. Marshals. In addition, we obtained biographical 

information on U.S. Marshals and senior field supervisors from the ATF, DEA, and 

IRS-CI, as of January 2003, to compare law enforcement experience, supervisory law 

enforcement experience, education, race, and gender for these officials. We 

researched applicable federal law and obtained information from the USMS detailing 

the authority of USMS Director over U.S. Marshals in the field. We also researched 
Page 6 GAO-03-499R Appointment and Qualifications of U.S. Marshals

previous legislative and other proposals for reforming the U.S. Marshals’ appointment 

process. 

- - - - 

We performed our work between July 2002 and March 2003 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We provided the Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshals Service, ATF, DEA, and 

IRS-CI officials with a draft of this report and incorporated their comments as 

appropriate. As agreed with your offices, this report concludes our work on the 

appointment and qualifications of U.S. Marshals. 

If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 512-3404 or by e-mail at 

berrickc@gao.gov, or William Crocker, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-4533, or by email at crockerw@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Michael Harmond, 

Ellen Wolfe, and Linda Kay Willard, David Alexander, Shirley Jones, and Katherine 

Davis. Copies of this report are available to other interested parties. This report will 

also be available on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Cathleen A. Berrick 

Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice 

(440148)