Definition
In law, resistance refers to the act of opposing, by force or active means, an effort that is itself carried out by force — most commonly the lawful exercise of authority by a government officer or agent. The term appears most frequently in criminal law contexts, where it describes a person's physical or forcible opposition to arrest, search, seizure, or other lawful official action.
The legal meaning is narrow compared to everyday usage. Resistance in law is not mere disagreement, verbal objection, or passive non-compliance. It connotes active, physical opposition — the employment of force, or at minimum conduct calculated to obstruct or prevent the execution of a lawful act through physical means.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "The act of resisting, or the capacity to resist." Also used for physical forces opposing motion, electrical resistance, and organized underground opposition movements.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The act of resisting; opposition, passive or active." Webster's expressly includes passive opposition within the term's scope.
The gap matters: Webster's 1913 definition encompasses passive resistance, but legal usage — as reflected in Black's and the case law — has historically required something more than passivity. A person who goes limp during an arrest may or may not qualify as "resisting" for criminal law purposes; whether passive non-compliance constitutes legal resistance is a live question in many jurisdictions. Researchers should not read the common or dictionary definition of "resistance" as settling that question.
---
Common Confusion
Resistance is frequently conflated with obstruction. Obstruction is typically broader — it encompasses interference with official proceedings, evidence, or administration of justice through means that may be entirely non-physical. Resistance, by contrast, traditionally implies a physical or forcible element directed at the officer or act itself. The two can overlap (resisting arrest often involves obstructing the officer), but they are distinct offenses in most jurisdictions. Researchers working with historical materials should be alert to sources that use these terms interchangeably, as later codifications drew sharper lines between them.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term's legal significance is almost entirely context-dependent. Resistance standing alone in a historical legal source means little without knowing what it was resistance to and whether force was actually employed. The classical definition — "the employment of forcible means to prevent the execution of an endeavor in which force is employed" — embeds a reciprocity requirement: force meets force. This framing is important for historical research because it implies that resistance to unlawful force may carry different legal weight than resistance to lawful authority.
Researchers working in criminal law materials should track whether the source addresses: (1) resistance to lawful arrest specifically; (2) the degree of force used in resistance; and (3) whether the underlying act being resisted was itself lawful. The lawfulness of the underlying official act is central — resistance to an unlawful arrest occupied contested legal ground for much of American legal history, and many older sources reflect doctrines that have since been narrowed or reversed by statute.
The corpus connections are significant. Resistance appears as a component element in resisting arrest offenses, but also surfaces in self-defense doctrine (where a person resists unlawful force), in admiralty contexts (resistance to search or seizure at sea), and in civil contexts (resistance to execution of process). Each context carries different standards, and historical sources do not always specify which they are addressing.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's editions are consistent and terse: resistance is the use of forcible means to prevent the execution of a forcible endeavor. The definition is functional rather than doctrinal — it describes the conduct without addressing intent, the lawfulness of what is being resisted, or the degree of force required. This brevity reflects the term's status as a descriptive building block rather than a standalone doctrine.
What the historical dictionaries omit is significant. There is no discussion of passive resistance, no treatment of the lawful/unlawful distinction for the underlying act, and no engagement with the question of whether verbal opposition qualifies. These omissions are not oversights so much as reflections of the era — those questions were handled in case law and became pressing doctrinal issues in the twentieth century, after these editions were compiled. The two cases cited in the supplemental edition (U.S. v. Jose and U.S. v. Huff) address resistance in federal contexts but are not elaborated upon in the dictionary text itself.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Modern statutes governing resistance to arrest vary substantially across states in what conduct qualifies and whether passive non-compliance is sufficient. Some jurisdictions have moved toward narrower definitions requiring active physical force; others retain broader formulations. Researchers should not assume historical common-law definitions of resistance map cleanly onto any particular modern statutory scheme.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Resisting Arrest and Obstruction of Law Enforcement — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia
---