18 U.S.C. § 1501 — Assault on process server

This section punishes two kinds of behavior against people serving court papers. First, it is a crime to knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or oppose a U.S. officer, or another authorized person. This applies while that person serves, or tries to serve, a legal or judicial writ or process. That writ or process must come from a U.S. court or magistrate judge. Second, it is a crime to assault, beat, or wound such an officer or authorized person. This applies while they are serving or executing a writ, rule, order, process, warrant, or other legal paper. This applies only if the attacker knew the target was an officer or someone authorized to serve papers. Unless another law sets a different penalty, the punishment for either act is a fine, up to one year in prison, or both.

The record. According to the source credit, this section was enacted on June 25, 1948, as part of chapter 645 of that year's session laws (62 Stat. 769), the general revision and codification of federal criminal law that established Title 18 in its modern form. The source credit further indicates that the section has been amended three times since enactment: by Public Law 90–578 in 1968, by Public Law 101–650 in 1990, and by Public Law 103–322 in 1994. The 1968 amendment appears tied to a broader title concerning federal magistrates, consistent with the statute's reference to United States magistrate judges. Historical context. The 1948 act that produced this section is generally understood to have been a comprehensive codification effort, consolidating and restating existing federal criminal statutes into a single organized title rather than creating wholly new substantive offenses. Provisions criminalizing obstruction of, or assault upon, officers serving federal judicial process are commonly understood to reflect a longstanding interest in protecting the integrity of court processes and the safety of those who execute them. Beyond this general understanding of the 1948 codification's purpose, the record here does not establish the specific legislative motivation behind this particular provision, and no further detail should be inferred.