U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART II— DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › Chapter CHAPTER 40— INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

28 U.S.C. § 597

Relationship with Department of Justice

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Suspension of Other Investigations and Proceedings.—Whenever a matter is in the prosecutorial jurisdiction of an independent counsel or has been accepted by an independent counsel under section 594(e), the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and all other officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall suspend all investigations and proceedings regarding such matter, except to the extent required by section 594(d)(1), and except insofar as such independent counsel agrees in writing that such investigation or proceedings may be continued by the Department of Justice.(b)Presentation as Amicus Curiae Permitted.—Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the Attorney General or the Solicitor General from making a presentation as amicus curiae to any court as to issues of law raised by any case or proceeding in which an independent counsel participates in an official capacity or any appeal of such a case or proceeding.(Added Pub. L. 95–521, title VI, § 601(a), Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1872; amended Pub. L. 97–409, § 2(a)(1)(A), Jan. 3, 1983, 96 Stat. 2039; Pub. L. 100–191, § 2, Dec. 15, 1987, 101 Stat. 1306.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–191 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to relationship with Department of Justice for substantially similar provisions.

1983—Pub. L. 97–409, § 2(a)(1)(A), substituted “independent counsel” for “special prosecutor” wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–191 effective Dec. 15, 1987, and applicable to proceedings initiated and independent counsels appointed on and after Dec. 15, 1987, see section 6 of Pub. L. 100–191, set out as a note under section 591 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1944–2018 · leading case: In re Sealed Case (Three Cases), 838 F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Sealed Case (Three Cases), 838 F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S. C. § 597. The independent counsel’s authority over the investigation is not temporary; it is coterminous with the investigation itself.”
United States ex rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 1993). “at 2604, citing 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a). The powers of a qui tam relator vary depending on whether and when the government takes over the qui tam action.”
United States v. Oliver L. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 597 . Yet in its expansive interpretation of Kastigar , the majority provides an easy out for conflicted government officials; they can immunize their colleagues from prosecution by exposing themselves to immunized testimony.”
United States v. Lance Henry Wilson, United States of Am. v. Leonard E. Briscoe, Sr., United States of Am. v. Maurice David Steier, 26 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “Challenge Under the Ethics in Government Act The Ethics in Government Act, § 601(a), 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a), provides: Whenever a matter is in the prosecutorial jurisdiction of an independent counsel or has been accepted by an independent counsel under section 594(e), the…”
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “28 U.S.C. § 597 (a) (expired). The Special Counsel regulations contain no language of this sort.”
Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 1999). “§ 599 (noting that the independent counsel and persons appointed by that independent counsel “are separate from and independent of the Department of Justice”); 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a), expired by 28 U.S.C.”
In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “30 Moreover, the Attorney General’s delegation did not violate the Ethics Act, 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a), which provides: Whenever a matter is in the prosecutorial jurisdiction of a[n] independent counsel or has been accepted by a[n] independent counsel under [ 28 U.”
In re Sealed Case No. 98-3069, 146 F.3d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a). Unless the Independent Counsel agrees in writing to permit the Department of Justice to continue its involvement in the case, see *1032 id.”
W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 145 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1944). “Item 6 of our summary of items relates to expenditures for taking and certifying depositions, and for the notary’s per diem, in excess of fees specified in 28 U.S. C.A. § 597. This question has been decided by the Second Circuit in Harris v.”
In re Sealed Case, 666 F. Supp. 231 (D.D.C. 1987). “His execution of the appointment affidavit, therefore, satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a). The Vesting of Authority Under the Regulation in Mr.”
In re Samuel R. Pierce, Jr. (Olivas Fee Application), 102 F.3d 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “1987) (noting that “[t]he statute is designed to ensure that violations of federal criminal law by high-ranking government officials (particularly those who are of the same party as the Administration in power) will be fairly and impartially investigated and prosecuted”); see…”
In re Sealed Case, 666 F. Supp. 231 (D.D.C. 1987). “His execution of the appointment affidavit, therefore, satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 597 (a). The Vesting of Authority Under the Regulation in Mr.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.