The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Solicitor General, in consultation with each agency or official concerned:
(a) Conducting, or assigning and supervising, all Supreme Court cases, including appeals, petitions for and in opposition to certiorari, briefs and arguments, and, in accordance with § 0.163, settlement thereof.
(b) Determining whether, and to what extent, appeals will be taken by the Government to all appellate courts (including petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions to such courts for the issuance of extraordinary writs) and, in accordance with § 0.163, advising on the approval of settlements of cases in which he had determined that an appeal would be taken.
(c) Determining whether a brief amicus curiae will be filed by the Government, or whether the Government will intervene, in any appellate court.
(d) Assisting the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General in the development of broad Department program policy.
[Order No. 423-69, 34 FR 20388, Dec. 31, 1969, as amended by Order No. 445-70, 35 FR 19397, Dec. 23, 1970; Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52341, Oct. 27, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Fed. Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994).
· cites it 10× “See 28 CFR § 0.20 (a) (1994). The question then becomes whether the Solicitor General's May 26, 1994, letter authorizing the FEC's petition relates back to the date of the FEC's unauthorized filing so as to make it timely.”
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945 (2019).
“§ 518(a) ; 28 CFR § 0.20 (a) (2018). Virginia, had it so chosen, could have authorized the House to litigate on the State's behalf, either generally or in a defined class of cases.”
Heartland Plymouth Court MI, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 838 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “§ 518 (a); see also 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 (Solicitor General is assigned duty of “[c]onducting, or assigning and supervising, all Supreme Court cases, including * * * petitions for and in opposition to certiorari”).”
United States v. Koerber, 813 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 (b) (stating that the Solicitor General determines “whether, and to what extent, appeals will be taken by the Government to all appellate courts”).”
Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§§ 516-19 ; 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 . The states need not follow that approach, however.”
United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693 (1988).
· cites it 2× “" 28 CFR § 0.20 (1987). Thus, unless this is a case other than one "in which the United States is interested," § 518(a), it must be conducted and argued in this Court by the Solicitor General or his designee.”
United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984).
“28 CFR § 0.20 (b) (1983). 7 The Government does not base its argument on the exception to the doctrine of collateral estoppel for “unmixed questions of law” arising in “successive actions involving unrelated subject matter.”
United States v. Patrick Savin, 349 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Under 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 , among the responsibilities that are “assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Solicitor General, in consultation with each agency or official concerned,” is "[dietermin-ing whether, and to what extent, appeals will be taken by…”
James Steven Hogg v. United States, 428 F.2d 274 (6th Cir. 1970).
· cites it 4× “Specifically the taxpayer relies upon 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 . 1 It is argued by the taxpayer that one of the main purposes of the 1946 amendment to Rule 73 (a), Fed.”
United States v. Tyrone Hare, 269 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2001).
“28 C.F.R. § 0.20 (b). But the choice of remedy in *862 Guevara is irrelevant once we reject, as we do, the idea that each of defendant’s promises in a plea agreement must be supported by some particular (and “similar”) promise by the prosecutor, as opposed to being supported by…”
Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2011).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 (b). But if the mere possibility that the federal defendants might decline to appeal were sufficient to rebut the presumption of adequacy, then nearly every case involving a federal defendant would be subject to intervention as of right.”
Rudisill v. McDonough, 4 F.4th 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Rudisill supports the decision of the Veterans Court, but challenges our jurisdiction to receive this ap- peal, based on the Solicitor General’s tardy approval of the appeal filing as required by 28 C.F.R. § 0.20 (b). Mr. Rudisill states that the appeal was not timely filed.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 0.20(b) — 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.