C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › Subpart R—Drug Enforcement Administration

28 C.F.R. § 0.100

General functions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration:

(a) Functions vested in the Attorney General by sections 1 and 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968.

(b) Except where the Attorney General has delegated authority to another Department of Justice official to exercise such functions, and except where functions under 21 U.S.C. 878(a)(5) do not relate to, arise from, or supplement investigations of matters concerning drugs, functions vested in the Attorney General by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. This will include functions which may be vested in the Attorney General in subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and not otherwise specifically assigned or reserved by him.

(c) Functions vested in the Attorney General by section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 and not otherwise specifically assigned.

[Order No. 520-73, 38 FR 18380, July 10, 1973, as amended by Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52348, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 1203-87, 52 FR 24447, July 1, 1987; Order No. 2204-99, 64 FR 4295, Jan. 28, 1999; Order No. 2666-2003, 68 FR 14899, Mar. 27, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Washington v. Barr
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington v. Barr (2019) ca2 · cites it 4× “§ 811 (a); 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b). Proceedings below Plaintiffs initiated the instant suit in the Southern District of New York in July 2017 and filed the amended complaint now at issue on September 6, 2017.”
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) scotus · cites it 2× “2 of 1973, § 1, 28 CFR § 0.100 (1973). [19] The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 consists of three titles.”
United States v. Daniel Touby, United States of America v. Lyrissa Touby (1990) ca3 · cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b) (1986). 1 Because the process of permanent scheduling contained an inevitable lag time, Congress amended the CSA in 1984 to permit the Attorney General to schedule substances on a temporary basis to “avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety” after…”
Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2017) cadc · cites it 2× “§ 823 (b), (e); 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 . The Administrator of DEA (the Administrator) closely observes registered distributors to ensure that their operations are “[ jconsistent with the public interest.”
United States v. William Waldo Emerson, United States of America v. Scott Wollman, United States of America v. Bruce Ehr (1988) ca9 · cites it 5× “28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b) (1986). Congress recognized that permanent scheduling could take from six to twelve months, during which time “enforcement actions against traffickers are severely limited and a serious health problem may arise.”
United States v. Forrester (2010) ca9 · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 0.100 . However, the legitimacy of this delegation is not at issue here; accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we attribute scheduling decisions to the AG.”
United States v. Ricardo U. Alerre, United States of America v. Deborah Bordeaux, United States of America v. Michael D. (2005) ca4 “other provisions of [law]”); 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (delegating, inter alia, Attorney General’s authority under § 822 to DEA Administrator).”
Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001) cadc “28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b) (2000). The Attorney General has also delegated supervision of civil and criminal forfeiture actions to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.”
United States v. Phifer (2018) ca11 “(citing 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b) (1990) ). Under this authority, in March of 2014, the DEA Administrator issued an order temporarily designating butylone (1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one) as a Schedule I controlled substance.”
United States v. Micah Iverson Kelly (2017) ca9 “28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b). “When adding a substance to a schedule, the [DEA] must follow specified procedures.”
Gettman v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2002) cadc “28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b). Current schedules are published at 21 C.”
United States v. Hussein (2003) ca1 “§ 811 (a) (authorizing the Attorney General to add substances to the CSA schedules); 28 C.F.R. § 0.100 (b) (delegating that authority to the DEA).”
Show all 124 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 0.100(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Pees (1986) cod
NH Hemp Council, Inc v. DEA (2000) ca1
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.