(a) When the subject matter of a case or proceeding is within his or her respective jurisdiction, the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division or of the National Security Division is authorized to exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by 18 U.S.C. 6003, to approve the application of a U.S. Attorney to a federal court for an order compelling testimony or the production of information by a witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to a court or grand jury of the United States, and the authority vested in the Attorney General by 18 U.S.C. 6004, to approve the issuance by an agency of the United States of an order compelling testimony or the production of information by a witness in a proceeding before the agency, when the subject matter of the case or proceeding is either within the cognizance of the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, or is not within the cognizance of the Divisions or Administration designated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) The Assistant Attorneys General or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division are authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General by 18 U.S.C. 6003 to approve the application of a U.S. Attorney to a Federal court for an order compelling testimony or the production of information in any proceeding before or ancillary to a court or grand jury of the United States when the subject matter of the case or proceeding is within the cognizance of their respective Divisions: Provided, however, that no approval shall be granted unless the Criminal Division indicates that it has no objection to the proposed grant of immunity.
(c) The Assistant Attorneys General and Deputy Assistant Attorneys General designated in paragraph (b) of this section, and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration are authorized to exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by 18 U.S.C. 6004 to approve the issuance by an agency of the United States of an order compelling testimony or the production of information by a witness in a proceeding before the agency when the subject matter of the proceeding is within the cognizance of their respective Divisions or the Administration: Provided, however, That no approval shall be granted unless the Criminal Division indicates that it has no objection to the proposed grant of immunity.
[Order No. 1310-88, 54 FR 297, Jan. 5, 1989, as amended by Order No. 2865-2007, 72 FR 10068, Mar. 7, 2007; Order No. 6508-2025, 90 FR 57140, Dec. 10, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
GUEVARA (1991)
bia
“§§ 6002 and 6004 (1988) and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175 (1989). We do not here address the validity of the order.”
In the Matter of Zoia Horn (1972)
ca3 · cites it 2×
“28 C.F.R. 0.175 (December 23, 1970). 11 The record includes an undated letter to United States Attorney Cottone from Robert C.”
In Re Robert Reginald Kilgo (1973)
ca4
“The assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division of the Department of Justice is specifically authorized to approve applications for immunity under 18 U.”
Kronberg v. U.S. Department of Justice (1995)
dcd · cites it 3×
“and 28 CFR 0.175, of which either Plaintiff in this case is a subject, and any other records related to the subject of Plaintiffs’ requests: • The Office of the Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division), • The Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Criminal…”
Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Sugarman (1974)
md
“6003 and 28 C.F.R. 0.175.” An order of that court was duly passed on February 14, 1974, requiring Sugarman to “give testimony or provide other information which he refuse[d] to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination as to all matters about which…”
In Re Stephen Tse (1984)
ca1
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 0.175 , the Attorney General’s authority has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division (appellant has not challenged the regulation) and, in the present case, the latter’s authority was obtained before the Commission…”
In the Matter of Patricia Grumbles and Donald Bruce Grumbles (1971)
ca3
“Wilson, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was given to the immunity application in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 0.175 (b)—see 18 U.S.C. § 2514 — on or before September 24, 1971, approximately three weeks before his resignation effective October 15, 1971.”
United States v. Henderson (1975)
ded
“The affidavit and motion of the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware stated that the information was sought in good faith, that it was necessary to the public interest and material to an ongoing investigation into local government corruption, and that Henderson…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(a) — 2 cases
Kronberg v. U.S. Department of Justice (1995)
dcd
“and 28 CFR 0.175, of which either Plaintiff in this case is a subject, and any other records related to the subject of Plaintiffs’ requests: • The Office of the Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division), • The Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Criminal…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(c) — 1 case
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.