(a) Assistant Attorneys General are authorized, with respect to matters assigned to their respective divisions, to redelegate to subordinate division officials and United States Attorneys any of the authority delegated by §§ 0.160 (a), (b), and (c), 0.162, 0.164, and 0.172(b), except that any disagreement between a United States Attorney or other Department attorney and a client agency over a proposed settlement that cannot be resolved below the Assistant Attorney General level must be presented to the Assistant Attorney General for resolution.
(b) Redelegations of authority under this section shall be in writing and shall be approved by the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate, before taking effect.
(c) Existing delegations and redelegations of authority to subordinate division officials and United States Attorneys to compromise or close civil claims shall continue in effect until modified or revoked by the respective Assistant Attorneys General.
(d) Subject to the limitations set forth in § 0.160(d) and paragraph (a) of this section, redelegations by the Assistant Attorneys General to United States Attorneys may include the authority to:
(1) Accept offers in compromise of claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which the gross amount of the original claim does not exceed $10,000,000; and
(2) Accept offers in compromise of, or settle administratively, claims against the United States in all cases in which the principal amount of the proposed settlement does not exceed $1,000,000.
[Order No. 1958-95, 60 FR 15675, Mar. 27, 1995, as amended by AG Order No. 3532-2015, 80 FR 30618, May 29, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
McAfee v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 428 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
McAfee v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 428 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
· cites it 5× “§§ 516 , 519 and 524, 28 C.F.R. § 0.168 , directive 14-95 and FAR 6.”
United States v. United States Dist. Court for N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 0.168 (a). . It appears that the government directed its September 14, 2011 motion to Judge Manglona because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, concerning writs of mandamus and other extraordinary writs, references the “trial court” and the "trial-court…”
In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1993).
“28 C.F.R. § 0.168 (a). In addition, settlements in various classes of important cases always must be approved by the Deputy Attorney General or one of the Assistant Attorneys General.”
Shekinah Gold Mines, Inc. v. United States (In Re Knopf), 190 B.R. 647 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1995).
“70 (Subpart N) delegates the prosecution in all courts other than tax court of matters arising under the internal revenue laws, including criminal proceedings, to the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division and 28 C.F.R. § 0.168 further provides for re-delegation of those…”
Ball v. Comm'r, 47 T.C.M. 1684 (Tax Ct. 1984).
· cites it 4× “We also need not address the issue of whether such authority, if it existed, was redelegated to the Assistant United States Attorney.”
United States v. Boggess (D. Nev. 2022).
“3 || 28 C.F.R. § 0.168 (a). It is not feasible, however, for these officials to attend this settlement 4 || conferences or the many others that are conducted throughout the country.”
Trail v. United States (D. Nev. 2023).
“28 C.F.R. § 0.168 (a). It is not feasible, however, for these officials to 8 attend all settlement conferences.”
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.