LeRoy Nellis

Contact

Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) and Federal Law Enforcement Authority

How U.S. Marshals Operate Through County Jails, National Databases, and Civilian Contracting

Introduction

The United States relies on a layered law enforcement model in which federal agencies, local governments, and civilian contractors interact under shared legal authority. At the heart of this framework are Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) — contracts that allow the federal government, particularly the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to house federal detainees in county jails. IGSAs are authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 4013, which empowers the Attorney General to contract with state or local governments for “the housing, care, and security” of federal prisoners (18 U.S.C. § 4013(a)(3))【DOJ OIG, 2017】. These agreements illustrate the principle of dual sovereignty, in which federal detainees remain under U.S. jurisdiction but are physically held by local sheriffs.

Defining Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs)

An IGSA is a contractual arrangement between a federal agency and a state or local government for detention services. Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 4013; see also U.S. Marshals Service Policy Directive 9.19, “Intergovernmental Agreements” (USMS Policy Manual, 2020). Structure: Per-diem bed rates, service scope (meals, transport, medical), renewal/termination clauses. Oversight: Federal inspectors under the USMS Prisoner Operations Division; OIG audits frequently highlight deficiencies【DOJ OIG, 2017】. Example: Williamson County Jail in Texas maintained an IGSA with the U.S. Marshals Service, generating significant revenue while housing federal detainees【Texas Tribune, 2019】. IGSAs differ from federal procurement contracts or grants because they are based on intergovernmental cooperation, not traditional competitive bidding.

The NCIC Database (often mistaken as “NCIS Database”)

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), managed by the FBI and governed under 28 C.F.R. Part 20, is the national repository of criminal justice information【FBI NCIC Manual, 2018】. It is accessible to the U.S. Marshals, ICE, FBI, NCIS, CID, and virtually all sheriff’s offices. Core NCIC Files Relevant to U.S. Marshals: Wanted Person File – fugitives, warrants, probation/parole violators. Missing Person File – endangered or juvenile cases. Stolen Property Files – vehicles, boats, securities, articles. Gun File – catalog of stolen, lost, or recovered firearms, including make, model, caliber, and serial number. Protection Orders, Gang, and Terrorist Files – restraining orders, organized crime identifiers, terrorism alerts. Operational Significance: During fugitive raids or jail intake searches, Marshals check firearms against the Gun File to link suspects to crimes. NCIC access allows Marshals to act with the same investigative reach as sheriffs — but under 18 U.S.C. § 3053, which grants them the full arrest powers of state peace officers for federal offenses.

U.S. Marshals Acting as Local Sheriffs and Undercover Agents

The U.S. Marshals’ powers are among the broadest in American law enforcement. 28 U.S.C. § 566 authorizes Marshals to execute all lawful writs and orders of U.S. courts “throughout the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3053 grants Marshals the same arrest powers as sheriffs or state peace officers for federal offenses. Deputization: Marshals may deputize local officers into federal service (28 C.F.R. § 0.112) and can themselves operate in joint task forces where they function as local deputies. Undercover Authority: In fugitive operations, Marshals often assume roles indistinguishable from sheriff’s deputies, backed by statutory arrest power and NCIC access. Case law has affirmed this authority, noting that Marshals act with both “the power of a sheriff and the reach of a federal officer” (United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980)).

Civilian Hiring in NCIS and CID

Beyond the Marshals, other federal investigative bodies like NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) and CID (Army Criminal Investigation Division) rely heavily on civilian expertise. NCIS civilian roles include cybersecurity specialists, forensic examiners, linguists, and counterintelligence analysts. Their authority is grounded in 10 U.S.C. § 5013 and DoD Instruction 1400.25. CID employs civilian special agents, digital forensic experts, and legal advisors, drawing authority from 5 U.S.C. civil service law and supplemented by contracting under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR, 48 C.F.R. Chapter 1). Civilians provide continuity and technical expertise beyond military rotations, showing how federal law enforcement blends uniformed authority with contracted skills.

How the U.S. Marshals Use County Jails Through IGSAs

Unlike the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals do not operate long-term prisons. Instead, federal detainees awaiting trial or transport are housed in county jails under IGSA contracts. Contract Terms: Daily per-diem rates, transportation agreements, medical services. Oversight: Inspections through the USMS Prisoner Operations Division; however, audits have revealed inconsistent monitoring【DOJ OIG, 2017】. Financial Incentives: Counties profit from guaranteed federal payments, raising concerns about overcrowding and reliance on detention revenue【GAO, 2014】. Accountability Issues: Litigation often raises disputes over whether liability rests with the county (conditions) or the USMS (custody authority).

Interagency Overlap – USMS, ICE, FBI, NCIS, CID

Federal law enforcement operates as an interconnected system. ICE uses IGSAs for immigration detainees, sometimes in the same county jails used by Marshals. The FBI embeds Marshals in Joint Terrorism Task Forces and shares NCIC access. NCIS and CID employ civilians under DoD authorities and exchange intelligence through NCIC. The U.S. Marshals act as a bridge, functioning federally while appearing locally through deputization.

Accountability & Oversight

Despite their efficiency, IGSAs and federal deputization raise issues. Transparency: IGSA contracts are often shielded from FOIA disclosure as “law enforcement sensitive.” Oversight Gaps: DOJ OIG audits cite inadequate detention standards, poor contract management, and perverse incentives【DOJ OIG, 2017】. Civil Liability: Courts divide liability depending on whether claims involve confinement conditions (county) or custody authority (federal). Policy Criticism: IGSAs incentivize detention expansion, raising civil rights concerns.

Conclusion

Intergovernmental Service Agreements form the backbone of how the U.S. Marshals Service operates — outsourcing detention to county jails while retaining federal control. At the same time, access to the NCIC database, particularly the Gun File, integrates Marshals seamlessly with sheriffs in real time. Their statutory powers under 28 U.S.C. § 566 and 18 U.S.C. § 3053 allow them to act undercover as sheriffs while maintaining national jurisdiction. Agencies like NCIS and CID expand capacity by hiring civilians, demonstrating broader reliance on intergovernmental cooperation and contracting. This hybrid model — contracts, databases, deputization, and civilian integration — delivers operational efficiency but raises enduring questions of accountability, transparency, and federal overreach.

References

  1. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Review of the United States Marshals Service Prisoner Operations. DOJ OIG Report 17-04, 2017.
  2. Texas Tribune. “Williamson County Ends Contract to House Federal Inmates.” Texas Tribune, 2019.
  3. FBI. NCIC Operating Manual. Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), 2018.
  4. U.S. Marshals Service. Policy Directive 9.19: Intergovernmental Agreements. USMS Policy Manual, 2020.
  5. U.S. Department of Defense. DoD Instruction 1400.25: Civilian Personnel Management. Washington, D.C., 2012.
  6. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Detainee Medical Care. GAO-14-38, 2014.