5 U.S.C. § 301
Departmental regulations
The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 393
cases (67 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: William O. Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
William O. Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “C § 1346(a)(2) (2000). The principal question before us is whether the promises made to the plaintiffs, older Air Force retirees, were within the authority of the Air Force Secretary under 5 U.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). “Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 301 , the enabling statute which gives federal department heads control over department records, the Secretary of Labor has promulgated a regulation, 29 CFR § 70.”
United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014). “In particular, the Government relies on 5 U.S.C. § 301 (2012), which empowers a department head to “prescribe regulations for the government of his department [and] the conduct of its employees,” and on 5 U.”
In re Recalcitrant Witness Richard Boeh, Julia Gomez v. Daryl Gates, & United States of Am., 25 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 1994). “22(a) was promulgated under the authority of the so-called “housekeeping statute,” 5 U.S.C. § 301 , which provides: The head of an Executive department .”
Willy v. Admin. Review Bd., 423 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005). “6 of 1950 and in 5 U.S.C. § 301 vests the Sec *492 retary with ample authority to create the ARB, appoint its members, and delegate final decision-making authority to them.”
United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 317 F. Supp. 3d 598 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§§ 509 , 510, 516 ; 5 U.S.C. § 301 ; see also Manafort , 312 F.”
Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 5 U.S.C. § 301 (authorizing Touhy regulations but providing: “This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.”
William O. Schism v. United States, 239 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “The district court held, however, that the government’s representations were not contractually binding because they were in conflict with the military regulations that determined the health care benefits of the retirees and their dependents.”
In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 1995). “The Federal Reserve also relies upon 5 U.S.C. § 301 , and 12 U.S.C. § 1844 (b).”
Mir Aimal Kasi v. Ronald J. Angelone, 300 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2002). “He eventually sought and obtained an order from the state court directing the federal agencies to appear and explain their refusal to respond to the court’s subpoenas.”
Koopmann v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 335 F. Supp. 3d 556 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “The principal question is this case is whether application of the regulations to "former" employees is lawful, as the statute pursuant to which the regulations were enacted-the Housekeeping Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 301 -speaks only of "employees.”
Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Superior Court, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Although the DOJ does not have an absolute privilege to withhold information from the public, this Court cannot reach the merits of the Real Party in Interest’s arguments favoring disclosure at this time.”
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.