N※N

Montgomery Faces $4,823 U.S. Marshals Bill for Defendant Transport

70

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. 3-u-s-marshals-bill-for-defendant-transport.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 22:20 GMT by firstalert4.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 9044 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 11444 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 10779 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 8563 Bytes

U.S. Marshals Bill City of Montgomery Thousands of Dollars for Transporting Defendant During Trial

In a story that highlights the often‑mismatched fiscal responsibilities between federal law‑enforcement agencies and local governments, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has sent a $4,823 invoice to the city of Montgomery, Alabama, for services related to the transportation of a defendant—identified only as “Montgomery”—during a federal trial that began on September 17, 2025. The city’s legal counsel is already drafting a letter to the federal court, arguing that the costs should be borne by the federal government and not by a municipal budget.

The claim stems from a routine but highly visible part of the federal criminal justice system: the USMS’s mandate to escort defendants, witnesses, and court officials to and from federal courthouses. While the agency typically receives its funding from the federal budget, the law has long permitted the sharing of “cost‑sharing” charges with the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides or the court sits—especially when additional security or logistical support is required. In this case, the city of Montgomery says the bill is unjustified because the defendant is a private citizen, not a federal prisoner or an individual held in the federal penitentiary system.

What the Invoice Covers

According to the notice sent to the Montgomery City Attorney’s Office, the bill itemizes the following expenses:

The “transportation” line includes a $600 fee for the rental of a specialized “defendant‑transport” vehicle, and a $800 surcharge for the use of the Montgomery‑Area Transportation Authority’s express rail line. The “security escort” portion reflects the cost of two USMS officers who monitored the defendant for the entire 12‑hour transit between his home in Montgomery and the U.S. District Court in Birmingham.

The city’s spokesman, Maria Sanchez, said the agency “is not entirely sure why the court requested that the city pay for these services. We have not yet received an official notice from the court, and we are reviewing the invoice thoroughly.”

Legal Context and Precedent

The bill falls into a broader category of “cost‑sharing” disputes that have come to the fore in recent years. In 2023, a similar invoice was sent to the city of Tuscaloosa for the transportation of a defendant during a federal trial on corruption charges. The Tuscaloosa city council, after a three‑day public hearing, declared the charges “unjustified” and filed a formal protest with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

The U.S. Marshals Service has repeatedly clarified that its policy allows for billing local jurisdictions when defendants are transported across state lines or when the court requests additional security due to threats or potential for violence. However, the policy also requires that the defendant’s home address and the court’s location be verified before a bill is issued. Critics argue that the current bill may be a “mistake” that will be corrected after the city protests.

According to the 1991 Federal Courts Act, local courts may request “cost‑sharing” for services that “serve the public interest and are otherwise not covered by federal funding.” In the case of the Montgomery bill, the federal court’s clerk, David Boucher, has stated that the bill was issued in accordance with the 1991 Act, citing the defendant’s history of violent protest and the possibility of a “riot‑style” courtroom environment.

City’s Response

Montgomery Mayor Jonathan Greene, at a press briefing on December 5, called the bill “unfair” and announced that the city would explore legal options to challenge the charges. “The city has always cooperated with federal agencies,” Greene said. “But no one should be forced to pay for services that are not clearly authorized.”

City Attorney Kevin Ramirez, in a letter to the U.S. Marshals Service dated December 3, demanded an “explanation of the charges, including a copy of the court’s order authorizing the billing.” Ramirez also requested a “detailed breakdown of the defendant’s travel itinerary and a justification for the additional security measures.” The letter ends with the city’s intent to file a “formal protest” if the bill is not corrected within ten business days.

In the meantime, Montgomery’s City Council has convened an emergency meeting to discuss a potential budgetary impact. The bill, while not enormous, would strain the city’s already tight fiscal line item that covers public safety and transportation. Councilmember Linda Park, a vocal opponent of federal “cost‑sharing,” has called for a citywide audit of the U.S. Marshals Service’s billing practices.

Broader Implications

The case is being watched by municipalities across Alabama and the Southeast, where the frequency of federal trials and the associated security costs are rising. As federal courts expand their jurisdiction to include more cases involving state officials, local governments face the possibility of mounting bills for services they were not prepared to pay for.

Some local officials argue that a more transparent system is needed. “If the court can’t provide clear documentation, the city can’t be held liable,” said Montgomery City Councilmember Thomas Reed. “We need a standardized protocol for cost‑sharing that includes advance notification, detailed itemization, and a clear appeals process.”

From the federal perspective, the U.S. Marshals Service maintains that it is not “cheating” local jurisdictions. “The costs reflect the real expenses we incur in ensuring a safe, orderly trial environment,” said USMS Deputy Chief of Staff, Thomas Jensen. “We will continue to work with local law‑enforcement partners to ensure that our billing practices are fair, transparent, and consistent.”

Conclusion

The bill sent to Montgomery by the U.S. Marshals Service underscores a growing tension between federal law‑enforcement agencies and local governments over cost‑sharing for court security and transportation services. While the city’s legal team is preparing a protest, the incident has sparked a debate about the proper allocation of financial responsibility for ensuring justice is administered safely and efficiently.

If the city wins its protest, it may set a precedent for other municipalities dealing with similar billing disputes. If the city loses, the case could open the door for increased federal costs on local budgets—an outcome that many city officials are keen to avoid. Either way, the story remains an important case study in how the federal and local levels of government coordinate, or fail to coordinate, on the practicalities of administering criminal trials in the United States.