28 C.F.R. § 68.28

Authority of Administrative Law Judge

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

(a) General powers. In any proceeding under this part, the Administrative Law Judge shall have all appropriate powers necessary to conduct fair and impartial hearings, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Conduct formal hearings in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and of this part;

(2) Administer oaths and examine witnesses;

(3) Compel the production of documents and appearance of witnesses in control of the parties;

(4) Compel the appearance of witnesses by the issuance of subpoenas as authorized by law;

(5) Issue decisions and orders;

(6) Take any action authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act;

(7) Exercise, for the purpose of the hearing and in regulating the conduct of the proceeding, such powers vested in the Attorney General as are necessary and appropriate therefore; and

(8) Take other appropriate measures necessary to enable him or her to discharge the duties of the office.

(b) Enforcement. If any person in proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, or misbehaves during a hearing or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same, or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document, or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed, or upon appearing refuses to take the oath as a witness, or after having taken the oath refuses to be examined according to law, the Administrative Law Judge responsible for the adjudication may, where authorized by statute or law, apply through appropriate counsel to the Federal District Court having jurisdiction in the place in which he/she is sitting to request appropriate remedies.

[54 FR 48596, Nov. 24, 1989. Redesignated and amended by Order No. 1534-91, 56 FR 50053, 50055, Oct. 3, 1991; Order No. 1635-92, 57 FR 57672, Dec. 7, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Split Rail Fence Co. v. United States, 852 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2017).
Split Rail Fence Co. v. United States, 852 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2017). “The record does not show that Split Rail sought to compel this discovery, 28 C.F.R. § 68.28 (a)(3), or to obtain a ruling regarding applicability of the privilege.”
Split Rail Fence Co. v. United States, 844 F.3d 880 (10th Cir. 2016). “The record does not ’ - show that Split Rail sought to compel this discovery, 28 C.F.R. § 68.28 (a)(3), or to obtain a ruling regarding applicability of the privilege.”
Walmart, Inc. v. Jean King (11th Cir. 2025). “§ 556 (c); see 28 C.F.R. § 68.28 . An ALJ’s exercise of those powers is “[s]ubject to published rules of the agency.”
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.