28 C.F.R. § 45.2

Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship

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

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

[Order No. 993-83, 48 FR 2319, Jan. 19, 1983. Redesignated at 61 FR 59815, Nov. 25, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: In re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to this statutory requirement, the Attorney General promulgated 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 , which provides, in relevant part, that "no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with .”

In re: Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “" 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 . Attorney General Sessions announced in a press release that "[c]onsistent with the succession order for the Department of Justice," the then-Acting Deputy Attorney General *1051 Dana Boente "shall act as and perform the functions of the Attorney General with…”

United States v. Rodella, 59 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (D.N.M. 2014). · cites it 8× “” Amended Motion at 3 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 ). Rodella argues that the “disqualification of government counsel .”

In Re: Indep. Couns. Kenneth W. Starr, United States Dep't of Just. v. Francis T. Mandanici, 152 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the author opines that, if true, the Pepperdine-Scaife allegations create the appearance of a personal conflict of interest as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (b)(2) (1998) (defining "personal relationship” as "a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed…”

United States v. Vega, 317 F. Supp. 2d 599 (D.V.I. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a). The section further defines a ‘personal relationship’ as, a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.”

United States v. Allen (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)(1); see id. § 45.2(c)(2) (defining “personal relationship” as “a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality”).”

Walter Leroy Moody, Jr. v. U.S. Attorney Gen. (11th Cir. 2018). “” See 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)–(c); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 873 F.”

In Re: Indep. v. Francis T. Mandanici (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the author opines that, if true, the Pepperdine-Scaife allegations create the appearance of a personal conflict of interest as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (b)(2) (1998) (defining “personal relationship” as “a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed…”

United States v. Harris, 313 F. App'x 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “§ 528 ; 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)(2); see also United States v.”

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.