Inspector General Finds Senior U.S. Marshals Official Had Intimate Relationship With Subordinate, Then Retired and Declined Interview
A Justice Department inspector general investigation found that a then senior official of the U.S. Marshals Service violated agency policy by engaging in an intimate relationship with a subordinate, according to a summary of the findings reviewed by The Digital Free Press.
The one-page summary, Investigative Summary 27-001, was posted on Oct. 6 to the website of the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It found that the official's conduct also amounted to "conduct unbecoming of a USMS employee, and unprofessional or inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature."
The official retired before the inspector general received the allegations, and later declined to be interviewed. The summary does not name the official or the subordinate, give the official's title, or say when the relationship took place.
TDFP has asked the U.S. Marshals Service and the Justice Department for comment and will update this story.
What the Inspector General Found About the U.S. Marshals Official
According to the summary, the OIG "initiated an investigation after receiving allegations of misconduct by a then Senior Official of the United States Marshals Service (USMS)."
"The OIG investigation found that the then Senior Official violated USMS policy by engaging in an intimate relationship with a subordinate, conduct unbecoming of a USMS employee, and unprofessional or inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature," the summary says.
The summary does not describe the evidence or say which Marshals Service policy provisions applied. It notes that "unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct," meaning the office found the misconduct more likely than not to have occurred.
Retired Before the Allegations Arrived
"The then Senior Official retired before the OIG's receipt of the allegations and before being contacted by the OIG for an interview," the summary says. "When contacted by the OIG for a voluntary interview, the then Senior Official declined to be interviewed."
The summary explains why the office could not require an interview: "The OIG has the authority to compel testimony from current Department employees upon informing them that their statements will not be used to incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. The OIG does not have the authority to compel or subpoena testimony from former Department employees."
"The OIG has completed its investigation and has provided its report to the USMS," the summary says. The full report was not posted with the summary, and the summary does not say whether the Marshals Service has taken, or can take, any action.
Why the Inspector General Posts These Summaries
The OIG says on its website that it posts summaries of administrative-misconduct findings in cases where "no criminal prosecution resulted but the OIG found misconduct by a member of the Senior Executive Service, an employee at the GS-15 grade level or above, or an Assistant U.S. Attorney," and in high-profile cases "or in which there may otherwise be significant public interest in the outcome of the investigation."
A summary is posted after the final report goes to the agency involved, and "after the Department, the affected component, and the subject (when appropriate) have been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed summary," according to the OIG.
A Longstanding Gap in Inspectors General's Powers
Most inspectors general can subpoena documents but not testimony, according to the Congressional Research Service. In a 2023 analysis, CRS wrote that "the ability of agency employees to stymie OIG investigations by leaving federal service has been a particularly frustrating problem for oversight stakeholders."
CRS noted that a few offices, including the Defense Department's inspector general and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, do have testimonial subpoena power. A House-passed version of the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act (H.R. 2662) would have extended that power with added controls, but CRS reported that the provision was left out when other parts of the bill became law in the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the umbrella group for federal inspectors general, lists testimonial subpoena authority among its legislative priorities. "For example, in cases involving a federal employee, that employee's resignation can substantially hamper an audit, investigation, or other review into matters within the scope of that individual's former responsibilities," the council says.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a Then Senior Official of the United States Marshals Service for Engaging in an Intimate Relationship with a Subordinate and Related Misconduct," Report No. 27-001, posted Oct. 6, 2026: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/investigative-summary-findings-misconduct-then-senior-official-united-states-marshals (PDF: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/27-001.pdf); DOJ OIG, "Investigative Findings in Cases Involving Administrative Misconduct": https://oig.justice.gov/reports/type/investigation ; Congressional Research Service, "Testimonial Subpoena Authority and Inspectors General" (IN12085, Feb. 2, 2023): https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN12085.html ; Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, "CIGIE Legislative Priorities and Initiatives": https://www.ignet.gov/content/cigie-legislative-priorities-and-initiatives
Comments