LISA MONACO HAS CREATED AN EMPIRE AT DOJ,

CONSOLIDATING POWER UNDER THE DEPUTY AG’S

OFFICE
SUMMARY

Since becoming Deputy Attorney General in January 2021, Lisa Monaco has made substantial edits to
the DOJ manual to consolidate power under the Deputy Attorney General’s office. The manual has
been edited to give the DAG more control over edits and changes to internal policy. The manual also
now gives the DAG heightened authority over disciplinary action, communications with the White
House, resolutions with corporate entities, settlement agreements, monitor selection, and other
important matters.

● In March 2024, the authority to edit the Manual was shifted from the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys to the Manual’s “Editor-in-Chief” and “Managing Editor,” both of whom are
handpicked by the Deputy AG. The Editor-in-Chief is the Principal Associate Deputy
Attorney General, or other senior leadership selected by the Deputy Attorney General.
Likewise, the Managing Editor is an attorney in the office of the Deputy Attorney General
selected by the Deputy Attorney General.

● Also in March 2024, a line was added to the intro section clarifying that, “Any questions about
the controlling internal policy or procedure should be directed to the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General.”

● The section on attorney professional misconduct was edited in December 2022 to give the
Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General the power to delegate authority to adjudicate
disciplinary actions pertaining to non-career attorneys. A provision was also added giving the
Deputy Attorney General the authority to adjudicate appeals from the OPR and OIG on
personnel misconduct findings.

● In April 2022 a section was added on “Communication with the White House,” mandating that
initial communications between the DOJ and the White House on pending investigations
involve only the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, and the Counsel or a
Deputy Counsel to the President. It also clarifies that the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney
General must be kept advised of communications from certain high-level security officials to
the DOJ. In addition, all requests from the White House for formal legal opinions will be
directed to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel. Finally, any communications between the White House and Office
of the Solicitor General concerning Supreme Court and appellate matters will involve only the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Solicitor General.

○ In March 2022, Monaco issued a memo further outlining DOJ policy on communicating
with the White House. The memo emphasized the need to keep the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General “timely informed of significant developments” and to secure
approval for certain communications from the Deputy AG’s office.
● The section on Urgent Reports added a line in September 2024 clarifying that reports should
be submitted by email “in a manner prescribed by the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General.”

● The manual outlines certain types of resolutions that the Deputy Attorney General must be
notified of prior to the final agreement. An update in April 2023 added new types of resolutions
to this list, including those that involve a corporate entity and relate to significant litigation, are
likely to generate national media or Congressional attention, or have significant implications on
foreign relations. Another category added was resolutions that would result in a successive or
multiple non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements for a corporate entity.

● Department attorneys were previously barred from entering into settlement agreements
involving payments to non-governmental third parties in most cases. The new rules as of
August 2022 allow such payments in certain cases, and clarify that such settlements must be
approved by the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General.

● The section on the use of monitors in cases involving state and local governmental entities was
updated in January 2023 to add that certain cases “should receive the personal attention of the
Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General.”

● The section on community service payments in environmental crimes cases was updated in
August 2022 to require the approval of settlements involving a payment to a non-governmental
third party by the Deputy Attorney General or Associate Attorney General.

● The section on Direct Appeal and Post-Conviction Proceedings stated as of January 2023 that
U.S. attorneys’ defense requests will be submitted to the Attorney General via the Deputy
Attorney General.

● The section on obtaining information from, questioning, arresting, or charging members of the
news media was updated in February 2024 such that any subpoena, effort to compel grand jury
or trial testimony, or arrest of a member of the news media must be authorized by the Deputy
Attorney General.

● The section corporate misconduct was updated in May 2024 to require that Department
prosecutors provide notice to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before making a
resolution offer that would result in multiple non-prosecution or deferred prosecution
agreements for a corporation. Monaco also issued a memo on this topic in September 2022.

● A section on selecting a monitor was added in March 2023 such that the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General must approve the monitor selection for all cases in which a monitor is
recommended.

● According to a new section added May 2022 on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),
offices shall inform the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before charging a CFAA
case in a particular way.
COMPARING DOJ MANUALS: 2021 & 2024

KEY CHANGES TO DOJ MANUAL, 2021-2024

Section 2021 2024

1-1.200 - Authority The Executive Office for United The Deputy Attorney General
States Attorneys (EOUSA) has delegated authority to the
coordinates the revision of the Justice Manual’s Editor-in-
Justice Manual in consultation Chief to authorize changes to
with Department components the Justice Manual. The
and leadership. Justice Manual’s Managing
Editor oversees coordination
of the revision of the Justice
Manual under the direction of
the Editor-in-Chief.

1-1.200 - Authority When the Justice Manual When the Justice Manual
conflicts with earlier DOJ conflicts with earlier DOJ
statements, the Justice Manual statements of policy or
controls. procedure, the Justice Manual
controls. Any questions about
the controlling internal policy
or procedure should be
directed to the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General.

1-1.300 - Revisions Proposed substantive changes The Principal Associate

to the Justice Manual may be Deputy Attorney General, or
submitted by the leadership of other senior leadership official
any component. Substantive selected by the Deputy
changes by the Attorney Attorney General, shall serve
General, Deputy Attorney as the Editor-in-Chief of the
General, or the Associate Justice Manual. The Editor-in-
Attorney General are effective Chief shall review all
upon issuance. substantive changes to the
Justice Manual. Substantive
changes to the Justice Manual
require the approval of the
Editor-in-Chief.

An attorney in the Office of

the Deputy Attorney General
selected by the Deputy
Attorney General shall serve
as the Managing Editor. The
Managing Editor shall chair
the Justice Manual’s Board of
Editors, oversee coordination
of revisions to the Justice
Manual, and may approve any
non-substantive, clerical
changes to the Justice
Manual.
1-4.320 - Adjudicating Findings The PMRU has no authority to The PMRU has no authority to
of Attorney Professional adjudicate disciplinary actions in adjudicate disciplinary actions in
Misconduct—The Professional misconduct cases pertaining to misconduct cases pertaining to
Misconduct Review Unit non-career attorneys (whether non-career attorneys (whether
appointed by the President with appointed by the President with
Senate confirmation, or Senate confirmation, or
otherwise politically appointed). otherwise politically appointed),
unless that authority is
specifically delegated by the
Attorney General or Deputy
Attorney General.

1-4.320 - Adjudicating Findings The PMRU Chief has authority The PMRU Chief has authority
of Attorney Professional in his or her discretion to choose in his or her discretion to choose
Misconduct—The Professional not to sustain findings of not to sustain findings of
Misconduct Review Unit misconduct referred to the misconduct referred to the
PMRU. PMRU, although OPR and the
OIG have the right to appeal
such decisions to the Deputy
Attorney General.

1-8.600 - Communication with N/A In order to insulate them from

the White House inappropriate influences, initial
communications between the
Department and the White
House concerning pending or
contemplated law enforcement
investigations or cases will
involve only the Attorney
General or Deputy Attorney
General, and the Counsel or a
Deputy Counsel to the President
(or the President or Vice
President).

1-8.600 - Communication with N/A It is critically important to have

the White House frequent and expeditious
communications between the
Department and the White
House in matters relating to
foreign relations and national
security, including
counterterrorism and
counterespionage. Therefore,
communications from or to the
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs, the
Principal Deputy National
Security Advisor, the Deputy
Counsel to the President for
National Security Affairs, and the
staff of the National Security
Council that relate to such
matters are not subject to the
limitations set out in JM 1-
 8.600(A) above or JM 1-8.600(F)
below. However, the Office of
the Attorney General or Deputy
Attorney General, and the Office
of the White House Counsel,
must be kept advised of such
communications.

1-8.600 - Communication with N/A All requests from the White

the White House House for formal legal opinions
will come from the Counsel or a
Deputy Counsel to the President
(or the President or Vice
President), and will be directed
to the Attorney General, Deputy
Attorney General, or Assistant
Attorney General for the Office
of Legal Counsel. The Assistant
Attorney General will advise the
Attorney General and Deputy
Attorney General of any such
requests.

1-8.600 - Communication with N/A Communications between the

the White House White House and the Office of
the Solicitor General concerning
Supreme Court and appellate
matters are often appropriate.
Any initial such communication
will involve only the Counsel or a
Deputy Counsel to the
President, and the Attorney
General, Deputy Attorney
General, or Solicitor General.

1-8.600 - Communication with N/A The Pardon Attorney may

the White House communicate directly with the
Counsel and Deputy Counsels
to the President concerning
clemency matters. The Pardon
Attorney and the Counsel to the
President may designate
additional subordinates to carry
on further communications after
the initial communication is
made. The Pardon Attorney
must keep the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General
informed of all such
communications.

1-13.140 - Urgent Report Department litigating divisions Department litigating divisions

Handling and Format should submit Urgent Reports by should submit Urgent Reports by
email to "Urgent Reports email in a manner prescribed
Litigating Divisions." by the Office of the Deputy
 Attorney General.

1-14.00 - Notice to DAG Notwithstanding any other Notwithstanding any other

Required for Certain Criminal delegation of authority, notice of delegation of authority, notice of
and Affirmative Civil Resolutions a proposed resolution in any a proposed resolution in any
criminal or affirmative civil matter criminal or affirmative civil matter
shall be provided to the Deputy shall be provided to the Deputy
Attorney General prior to final Attorney General prior to final
agreement by the Department agreement by the Department
where the proposed resolution: where the proposed resolution:
(1) contains a monetary
component or components (1) contains a monetary
totaling $200 million or more; (2) component or components
raises legal issues or policy totaling $200 million or more;
questions that are non-routine
and either sensitive, important, (2) involves a corporate or
or novel; or (3) imposes a novel, organizational entity and will
sensitive, or unusually extensive require the filing of an urgent
conduct remedy or injunctive report as (a) a major
measure. development in a significant
investigation or litigation, (b)
an event likely to generate
national media or
Congressional attention, or (c)
a development with significant
implications on foreign
relations, see JM 1-13.000 et
seq. on Urgent Reports;

(3) raises legal issues or policy

questions that are non-routine
and either sensitive, important,
or novel;

(4) imposes a novel, sensitive,

or unusually extensive conduct
remedy or injunctive measure; or

(5) would result in a

successive or multiple non-
prosecution or deferred
prosecution agreement for a
corporate or organizational
entity (including affiliated
entities), see JM 9-28.600.

1-17.000 - Settlement Department attorneys shall not Some settlement agreements

Agreements Involving Payments enter into any agreement on that the Department enters
to Non-Governmental Third behalf of the United States in into to resolve civil and
Parties settlement of federal claims or criminal matters require
charges, including agreements payments to non-
settling civil litigation, accepting governmental third parties[1]
plea agreements, or deferring or as a means of addressing
declining prosecution in a violations of federal law. [...]
criminal matter, that directs or Department components
 provides for a payment to any proposing a settlement
non-governmental person or involving a payment to a non-
entity that is not a party to the governmental third party must
dispute. obtain the approval of the
Deputy Attorney General or
the Associate Attorney
General, as appropriate, and
explain how the proposed
settlements complies with
these guidelines and
limitations.

1-20.100 - Approval of N/A With limited exceptions, the

Settlement Agreements, Department has long placed
Consent Decrees, and the Use authority to determine the form
of Monitors in Cases Involving and substance of civil
State and Local Governmental resolutions with state and local
Entities. governmental entities in the
heads of litigating components
and United States Attorneys. [...]
Also pursuant to Department
regulations, however, a
settlement agreement or
consent decree with a state or
local governmental entity must
be referred to the Deputy
Attorney General or the
Associate Attorney General if
the component head “is of the
opinion that[,] because of a
question of law or policy
presented . . . or for any other
reason, the proposed
[resolution] should receive the
personal attention of the Deputy
Attorney General or the
Associate Attorney General, as
appropriate.”

5-11.105 - Community Service N/A Department attorneys

Payments in Environmental considering the use of
Crimes Cases community service payments in
environmental crimes cases
must consult the policy
governing settlement
agreements involving payments
to non-governmental third
parties. [...] Department
attorneys proposing a settlement
involving a payment to a non-
governmental third party must
obtain the approval of the
Deputy Attorney General or the
Associate Attorney General, as
appropriate, and explain how the
 proposed payments comply with
the Memorandum’s guidelines
and limitations.

9-10.190 - Direct Appeal and N/A If the United States Attorney or

Post-Conviction Proceedings Assistant Attorney General
concurs in a defense request for
consent to judicial relief, the
Capital Review Committee will
forward the request and the
Committee’s recommendation to
the Attorney General, through
the Deputy Attorney General.

If the United States Attorney or

Assistant Attorney General
opposes a defense request, the
Capital Review Committee will
forward the request and the
Committee’s recommendation to
the Attorney General, through
the Deputy Attorney General.

9-13.400 - Obtaining Information N/A Members of the Department

From, or Records of, Members shall endeavor to use the least
of the News Media; and intrusive means possible to
Questioning, Arresting, or secure authentication of
Charging Members of the News information or records that have
Media already been published,
pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(c)(1). If authentication of
information or records that have
already been published requires
grand jury or trial testimony from
a member of the news media,
any subpoena or other process
to compel such testimony, even
if issued with the consent of the
member of the news media,
must be authorized by the
Deputy Attorney General
pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(f)(1) (seeking to compel
grand jury or trial testimony).

[...]

(1) Except as provided in

paragraph (f)(2) of this section,
members of the Department
must obtain the authorization of
the Deputy Attorney General
when seeking to compel grand
jury or trial testimony otherwise
permitted by this section from
 any member of the news media.

(2) When the compelled

testimony under paragraph (f)(1)
of this section has no nexus to
the person’s or entity’s activities
as a member of the news media,
members of the Department
must obtain the authorization of
a Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division
and provide prior notice to the
Deputy Attorney General.

[...]

(1) Except as provided in

paragraph (m)(2) of this section
or in circumstances in which
prior authorization is not
possible, members of the
Department must obtain the
authorization of the Deputy
Attorney General to seek a
warrant for an arrest, conduct an
arrest, present information to a
grand jury seeking a bill of
indictment, or file an information
against a member of the news
media.

9-16.325 - Guidelines and Department attorneys may not Department attorneys

Limitations for Agreements enter into any agreement on the considering the use of plea
Involving Payments to Non- behalf of the United States in agreements, deferred
Governmental Third Parties prosecution agreements, or
settlement of federal claims or
non-prosecution agreements
charges, including agreements involving a payment to a non-
settling civil litigation, accepting governmental third party must
plea agreements, or deferring or consult the guidelines and
declining prosecution in a limitations governing such
criminal matter, that directs or agreements. [...] Department
provides for a payment or loan attorneys proposing an
agreement involving a
to any non-governmental person
payment to a non-
or entity that is not a party to the governmental third party must
dispute. obtain the approval of the
Deputy Attorney General or
the Associate Attorney
General, as appropriate, and
explain how the proposed
payments comply with the
Memorandum’s guidelines
and limitations.

9-28.600 - The Corporation’s N/A Before making a corporate

 History of Misconduct resolution offer that would result
in multiple non-prosecution or
deferred prosecution
agreements for a corporation
(including its affiliated entities),
Department prosecutors must
secure the written approval of
the responsible U.S. Attorney or
Assistant Attorney General and
provide notice to the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General
(ODAG) in the manner set forth
in Section 1-14.000.

9-28.1720 - Selection of Monitor N/A The Office of the Deputy

Attorney General must approve
the monitor selection for all
cases in which a monitor is
recommended, unless the
monitor is court-appointed.

9-48.000 - Computer Fraud and N/A When an office has consulted

Abuse Act with CCIPS and intends to
charge a CFAA case in a
manner contrary to a written
recommendation invoking this
paragraph, that office shall
inform the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General before
charging. [...] In no instance will
an office charge a defendant
with “exceeding authorized
access” or “exceeds authorized
access” contrary to a
recommendation from CCIPS
without approval from the Office
of the Deputy Attorney General.

DOJ MANUAL CHANGES FULL TEXT

1-1.200 - Authority
2021
The Justice Manual is prepared under the supervision of the Attorney General and under the
direction of the Deputy Attorney General. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(EOUSA) coordinates the revision of the Justice Manual in consultation with Department
components and leadership. When the Justice Manual conflicts with earlier DOJ statements, the
Justice Manual controls.

The Justice Manual provides internal DOJ guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in
any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigation
prerogatives of DOJ.

2024
The Justice Manual is prepared under the supervision of the Attorney General and direction of
the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General has delegated authority to the
Justice Manual’s Editor-in-Chief to authorize changes to the Justice Manual. The Justice
Manual’s Managing Editor oversees coordination of the revision of the Justice Manual
under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief.

When the Justice Manual conflicts with earlier DOJ statements of policy or procedure, the
Justice Manual controls. Any questions about the controlling internal policy or procedure
should be directed to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

The Justice Manual provides internal DOJ guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not
be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in
any matter, civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigation
prerogatives of DOJ.

[updated March 2024]

1-1.300 - Revisions

2021

Proposed substantive changes to the Justice Manual may be submitted by the leadership of any
component. Substantive changes by the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or the
Associate Attorney General are effective upon issuance. All other proposed substantive
changes must be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) and the
heads of any affected DOJ components before being incorporated. When one component
objects to a proposed change, that component will communicate with the proposing component
to try and reconcile their differences. Unresolved issues will be decided by the Attorney General
or the Deputy Attorney General.
Clerical changes to the Justice Manual do not require cross-component review before
incorporation. Clerical changes should be sent to the Justice Manual staff through the Director
of EOUSA.

[updated April 2018]

2024

The Justice Manual contains internal Department guidance that has been adopted
through a policy-development process. This provision explains how the Justice Manual
is revised to reflect the policy changes adopted through that process.

A. Editors

The Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, or other senior leadership official
selected by the Deputy Attorney General, shall serve as the Editor-in-Chief of the Justice
Manual. The Editor-in-Chief shall review all substantive changes to the Justice Manual.
Substantive changes to the Justice Manual require the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

An attorney in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General selected by the Deputy Attorney
General shall serve as the Managing Editor. The Managing Editor shall chair the Justice
Manual’s Board of Editors, oversee coordination of revisions to the Justice Manual, and
may approve any non-substantive, clerical changes to the Justice Manual.

The Justice Manual Board of Editors, chaired by the Managing Editor, shall comprise
approximately 20 officials, including at least one senior attorney from each of the
following components and organizations: the Office of the Associate Attorney General,
the Antitrust Division, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division,
the Environment and Natural Resources Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys,
the Justice Management Division’s Office of General Counsel, the National Security
Division, and the Tax Division, as well as the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices’ Appellate Chiefs
Working Group, Civil Chiefs Working Group, and Criminal Chiefs Working Group.
Additional components may submit requests to join the Board to the Managing Editor. At
the request of the Managing Editor, the Board will review and provide feedback, as
warranted, on proposed changes to the Justice Manual or perform other tasks related to
the Justice Manual’s substance, review, and revision.

B. Revision Process

1. Substantive Revisions Directed by a Department Leadership Principal

The Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, or the Associate Attorney General
with the concurrence of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, may direct
changes to the Justice Manual. The Managing Editor shall oversee implementation of the
changes, which generally will include review by the Board of Editors before final
approval by the Editor-in-Chief.

[...]

[updated March 2024]

1-4.320 - Adjudicating Findings of Attorney Professional Misconduct—The

Professional Misconduct Review Unit

2021

Mission. Where OPR has made findings of attorney professional misconduct, those findings are
referred to the Department’s Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU). Consistent with
memoranda issued separately by the Deputy Attorney General, the PMRU evaluates any
findings of professional misconduct by OPR and, where appropriate, issues fair, timely, and
consistent disciplinary decisions. The PMRU also authorizes referrals to the appropriate bar
authority in those instances in which OPR concludes that a current or former Department
attorney violated a rule of professional conduct during his or her tenure with the Department.

Authority of the PMRU. The PMRU has authority to handle disciplinary matters involving career
Department attorneys, except for those employed in the law enforcement components and
certain employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The PMRU has no authority
to adjudicate disciplinary actions in misconduct cases pertaining to non-career attorneys
(whether appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, or otherwise politically
appointed). The PMRU Chief has authority in his or her discretion to choose not to sustain
findings of misconduct referred to the PMRU. The PMRU Chief also has the authority in his or
her discretion to include in the PMRU disciplinary decision any poor judgment findings in reports
of investigation that are closely related to the professional misconduct findings referred to the
PMRU. Closely related findings are those findings that arise from the same report of
investigation, are made against the same individual, and are based on the same or substantially
similar conduct. The PMRU Chief's disciplinary authority includes the authority to resolve or
authorize the resolution of any disciplinary action pending before the PMRU without the PMRU
reaching a final decision on the merits of the action. Depending on the circumstances, the
PMRU Chief may serve as the Grievance Official to a Letter of Reprimand issued by a PMRU
Attorney or the Deciding Official on a suspension or removal action proposed by a PMRU
Attorney. In all of its actions, the PMRU will operate in accordance with the due process
requirements established in 5 U.S.C. § 7500 et seq., and 5 C.F.R. Part 752.

Bar Referrals. At the conclusion of any final disciplinary action by the PMRU, including any
decision from a final appellate authority, if there is a final determination that a subject attorney
committed professional misconduct implicating a rule of professional conduct or when the
PMRU Chief otherwise determines that a rule of professional conduct so requires, the PMRU
Chief will direct OPR to refer the subject attorney to the appropriate bar authority or authorities.
For former Department attorneys, the PMRU Chief may, after receiving an OPR report of
investigation finding misconduct, issue a letter advising the subject attorney of the misconduct
findings and informing the subject attorney of the right to submit an objection to OPR’s findings.
After receipt of an objection, if any, the PMRU Chief will determine if the matter will be referred
to the appropriate bar authority under the same procedures as for Department attorneys.

The Authority of the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General reserves the
authority to designate individuals outside of the PMRU to serve as proposing, deciding, or
grievance officials in all disciplinary matters, including those involving findings of professional
misconduct by OPR, or to personally serve as the proposing, deciding, or grievance official.
The Deputy Attorney General also reserves the right to designate an acting PMRU Chief.

[updated September 2018]

2024

Mission. Where OPR has made findings of attorney professional misconduct, those findings are
referred to the Department’s Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU). Pursuant to a
memorandum issued separately by the Deputy Attorney General, the PMRU evaluates any
findings of professional misconduct by OPR and, where appropriate, issues fair, timely, and
consistent disciplinary decisions for current Department attorneys. The PMRU also authorizes
referrals to the appropriate bar authority when OPR or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
has found that a current or former Department attorney engaged in conduct during his or her
tenure with the Department that implicates a rule of professional conduct.

Authority of the PMRU. The PMRU has authority to handle disciplinary matters involving career
Department attorneys [REMOVED: “, except for those employed in the law enforcement
components and certain employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.”]
The PMRU has no authority to adjudicate disciplinary actions in misconduct cases pertaining to
non-career attorneys (whether appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, or
otherwise politically appointed), unless that authority is specifically delegated by the
Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. The PMRU Chief has authority in his or her
discretion to choose not to sustain findings of misconduct referred to the PMRU, although OPR
and the OIG have the right to appeal such decisions to the Deputy Attorney General. The
PMRU Chief also has the authority in his or her discretion to include in the PMRU disciplinary
decision any poor judgment findings in reports of investigation that are closely related to the
professional misconduct findings referred to the PMRU. Closely related findings are those
findings that arise from the same report of investigation, are made against the same individual,
and are based on the same or substantially similar conduct. The PMRU Chief's disciplinary
authority includes the authority to resolve or authorize the resolution of any disciplinary action
pending before the PMRU without the PMRU reaching a final decision on the merits of the
action. [REMOVED: “Depending on the circumstances, the PMRU Chief may serve as the
Grievance Official to a Letter of Reprimand issued by a PMRU Attorney or the Deciding
Official on a suspension or removal action proposed by a PMRU Attorney.] In most
matters, the PMRU Chief will both propose and decide discipline. In the most serious
matters, an attorney experienced in the disciplinary process will propose discipline, and
the PMRU Chief will issue a decision on the proposed discipline. Attorneys subject to
discipline of less than a 15-day suspension have the right to grieve the discipline with a
grievance official. Attorneys subject to a discipline of more than a 14-day suspension up
to removal have the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. In all of its
actions, the PMRU will operate in accordance with the due process requirements established in
5 U.S.C. §§ 7500 et seq., and 5 C.F.R. Part 752.

Bar Referrals. The PMRU has the authority to authorize OPR to make bar referrals for all
current and former Department career attorneys, and all non-career attorneys except
those appointed by the President (with or without Senate confirmation). At the conclusion
of any final disciplinary action by the PMRU, [REMOVED: including any decision from a final
appellate authority], or when the OIG has concluded that a current Department attorney
engaged in misconduct, if there is a final determination that a subject attorney committed
professional misconduct implicating a rule of professional conduct or when the PMRU Chief
otherwise determines that a rule of professional conduct so requires, the PMRU Chief will direct
OPR to refer the subject attorney to the appropriate bar authority or authorities. For former
Department attorneys, the PMRU Chief will, after receiving an OPR or OIG report of
investigation finding misconduct, issue a letter advising the subject attorney of the misconduct
findings and informing the subject attorney of the right to submit an objection to OPR’s or the
OIG's findings. After receipt of an objection, if any, the PMRU Chief will determine if the matter
will be referred to the appropriate bar authority under the same procedures and standards as for
Department attorneys.

The Authority of the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General reserves the
authority to designate individuals outside of the PMRU to serve as proposing, deciding, or
grievance officials in all disciplinary matters, including those involving findings of professional
misconduct by OPR, or to personally serve as the proposing, deciding, or grievance official.
The Deputy Attorney General also reserves the right to designate an acting PMRU Chief.

[updated December 2022]

1-8.600 - Communication with the White House

2021

[TBD]

[added December 2019]

2024
The “White House,” for purposes of this section, means all components within the
Executive Office of the President. Please see the July 21, 2021, Attorney General
memorandum Department of Justice Communications with the White House, which is
published below in full.

***

The success of the Department of Justice depends upon the trust of the American
people. That trust must be earned every day. And we can do so only through our
adherence to the longstanding Departmental norms of independence from inappropriate
influences, the principled exercise of discretion, and the treatment of like cases alike.

Over the course of more than four decades, Attorneys General have issued policies
governing communications between the Justice Department and the White House. The
procedural safeguards that have long guided the Department’s approach to such
communications are designed to protect our criminal and civil law enforcement
decisions, and our legal judgments, from partisan or other inappropriate influences,
whether real or perceived, direct or indirect.

This chapter sets out guidelines to govern all communications between Justice
Department and White House personnel. As has traditionally been the case, these
guidelines have been developed in consultation with, and have the full support of, the
Counsel to the President.

A. Communications Concerning Pending or Contemplated Criminal or Civil Law

Enforcement Investigations or Cases

In order to promote and protect the norms of Departmental independence and integrity in
making decisions regarding criminal and civil law enforcement, while at the same time
preserving the President’s ability to perform his constitutional obligation to “take care
that the laws be faithfully executed,” the Justice Department will not advise the White
House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil law enforcement
investigations or cases unless doing so is important for the performance of the
President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

The Assistant Attorneys General, the United States Attorneys, the heads of the
investigative agencies, and their subordinates have the primary responsibility to initiate
and supervise law enforcement investigations and cases. In order to insulate them from
inappropriate influences, initial communications between the Department and the White
House concerning pending or contemplated law enforcement investigations or cases will
involve only the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, and the Counsel or a
Deputy Counsel to the President (or the President or Vice President). If the
communications concern pending or contemplated civil law enforcement investigations
or cases, the Associate Attorney General may also be involved. Communications about
Department personnel regarding their handling of specific law enforcement
investigations or cases are included within the requirements of JM 1-8.600(A).

If further or continuing communications between the Department and the White House
on a particular matter are required, the officials who participated in the initial
communication may designate subordinates to carry on such communications. The
designating officials must monitor subsequent communications, and the designated
subordinates must keep their superiors regularly informed of any such communications.

JM 1-8.600(A) also applies to communications between the Justice Department and the
White House concerning the Department’s exercise of its adjudicatory authority,
including within the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

JM 1-8.600(A) is not intended to interfere with the normal communications between the
Department and other departments and agencies in their capacities as Department
clients (including entities within the Executive Office of the President when they are
Department clients) or any meetings or communications necessary to the proper
conduct of investigations or litigation in that capacity. However, in matters where the
Executive Office of the President is the Department client, Department personnel must
keep the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General advised
of such communications.

JM 1-8.600(A) does not prevent officials in the communications, public affairs, or press
offices of the Department and the White House from communicating with each other to
coordinate communications efforts. However, the relevant offices (the Office of the
Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General, and the Office of the White
House Counsel) must be advised and approve of such coordination efforts in advance.

B. Communications Concerning National Security Matters

It is critically important to have frequent and expeditious communications between the

Department and the White House in matters relating to foreign relations and national
security, including counterterrorism and counterespionage. Therefore, communications
from or to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Principal
Deputy National Security Advisor, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National
Security Affairs, and the staff of the National Security Council that relate to such matters
are not subject to the limitations set out in JM 1-8.600(A) above or JM 1-8.600(F) below.
However, the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, and the Office of
the White House Counsel, must be kept advised of such communications. Such
communications may also be subject to further supervisory guidance designed by those
Offices to safeguard both the Department’s independence and national security
responsibilities.
This exception for foreign relations and national security related matters does not extend
to domestic matters unrelated to foreign actors or foreign influences when there are no
exigent circumstances that would render infeasible the initial communication
requirement of JM 1-8.600(A). Nor does the exception extend to pending adversary
cases in litigation that may have national security implications. Communications related
to such domestic matters and pending cases are subject to the guidelines for pending or
contemplated law enforcement investigations or cases described in JM 1-8.600(A). If
communications occur in the exigent circumstances described in this paragraph, the
Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, and the Office of the White
House Counsel, must be notified as soon as feasible.
For further guidance on this topic, please see the March 28, 2022, Deputy Attorney
General memorandum Communications With The White House Concerning National
Security Matters.

C. White House Requests for Legal Opinions

All requests from the White House for formal legal opinions will come from the Counsel
or a Deputy Counsel to the President (or the President or Vice President), and will be
directed to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Legal Counsel. The Assistant Attorney General will advise the Attorney
General and Deputy Attorney General of any such requests. If further or continuing
communications on a particular matter are required, the Assistant Attorney General may
designate subordinates to carry on such communications. The Assistant Attorney
General will report to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General any
communications that, in the Assistant Attorney General’s view, constitute improper
attempts to influence the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal judgment. All other White House
communications with Office of Legal Counsel personnel must be in accordance with the
other parts of this memorandum. The Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney
General, and the Office of the White House Counsel, must be kept advised of such
communications.

D. Communications with the Office of the Solicitor General

Communications between the White House and the Office of the Solicitor General
concerning Supreme Court and appellate matters are often appropriate. Any initial such
communication will involve only the Counsel or a Deputy Counsel to the President, and
the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Solicitor General. If further or
continuing communications on a particular matter are required, the officials who
participated in the initial communication may designate subordinates from each side to
carry on such communications. The Solicitor General must keep the Office of the
Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General advised regarding such communications.
All other White House communications with Office of the Solicitor General personnel
must be in accordance with the other parts of this memorandum.
E. Communications with the Pardon Attorney

The Pardon Attorney may communicate directly with the Counsel and Deputy Counsels
to the President concerning clemency matters. The Pardon Attorney and the Counsel to
the President may designate additional subordinates to carry on further communications
after the initial communication is made. The Pardon Attorney must keep the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General informed of all such communications.

F. Communications Concerning Policy and Intergovernmental Relations

As a department within the Executive Branch, the Justice Department appropriately

works to advance the Administration’s policies and intergovernmental relations. Thus,
communications between the Department and the White House that are limited to these
subjects, and that do not relate to pending or contemplated law enforcement
investigations or cases, are appropriate. In order to ensure that such communications do
not touch upon the latter (which are the subject of JM 1-8.600(A)), initial communications
between the Department and the White House concerning policies and intergovernmental
relations will involve the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney
General, and the Office of the Counsel to the President. If further or continuing
communications are appropriate, the officials who participated in the initial
communication may authorize other personnel to carry on such communications, who
must keep those Offices advised.

G. Communications Concerning Procurement and Grantmaking

Communications between the White House and the Department regarding procurement
and grantmaking policies and priorities are appropriate. However, the award of specific
contracts and grants are subject to the norm of independence in decision-making.

In order to insulate the Department’s procurement and grantmaking functions from

potentially inappropriate influences, initial communications between the Department and
the White House concerning procurement and grantmaking will involve only the Offices
of the Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General, and the Office of the
Counsel to the President. If further or continuing communications are appropriate, the
officials who participated in the initial communication may authorize other personnel to
carry on such communications, who must keep those Offices advised.

H. Other Communications Not Relating to Pending or Contemplated Law Enforcement

Investigations or Cases

Communications between the Department and the White House that are limited to
legislation, budgeting, political appointments, public affairs, or administrative matters
that do not relate to pending or contemplated law enforcement investigations or cases
may be handled directly by the personnel concerned. Such communications are
appropriate, but they must take place with the knowledge of the Department’s lead point
of contact regarding the subject, who must keep the Office of the Attorney General or
Deputy or Associate Attorney General advised of such communications.

I. Personnel Decisions Concerning Positions in the Civil Service

All personnel decisions regarding career positions in the Department must be made
without regard to the applicant’s or occupant’s actual or perceived partisan affiliation.
Thus, although the Department regularly receives communications from the White House
(as well as from Senators and Members of Congress and their staffs) concerning political
appointments, communications regarding positions in the career service are not proper
when they concern a job applicant’s or a job holder’s partisan affiliation. Efforts to
influence personnel decisions concerning career positions on partisan grounds must be
immediately reported to the Deputy Attorney General.

[...]

[updated April 2022]

1-13.140 - Urgent Report Handling and Format

2021

USAOs and Department litigating divisions should submit Urgent Reports in memo format to the
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and include the following:

● Name and contact information of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney
General submitting the Urgent Report;
● Date of the Urgent Report;
● Classification level: Urgent Reports that contain classified material must be sent through
appropriate secure communications;
● Contact Person: Name and contact information of person with complete knowledge of
the facts reported;
● Synopsis: A one paragraph or shorter summary of the facts; and
● Discussion: A concise recitation of the development giving rise to the need for the
Urgent Report, including whether media is aware of the subject matter of the report.

Department litigating divisions should submit Urgent Reports by email to "Urgent Reports
Litigating Divisions." USAOs must submit Urgent Reports to EOUSA through the USA-Report
system.

[updated April 2018]

2024
USAOs and Department litigating divisions should submit Urgent Reports in memo format to the
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and include the following:

● Name and contact information of the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney
General submitting the Urgent Report;
● Date of the Urgent Report;
● Classification level: Urgent Reports that contain classified material must be sent through
appropriate secure communications;
● Contact Person: Name and contact information of person with complete knowledge of
the facts reported;
● Synopsis: A one paragraph or shorter summary of the facts; and
● Discussion: A concise recitation of the development giving rise to the need for the
Urgent Report, including whether media is aware of the subject matter of the report.
● Component notice or consultation: Under the Justice Manual, certain investigative
steps or litigation actions require notice to, consultation with, or approval by
another Department office or component. See, e.g., JM 9-13.400 (members of news
media), JM 9-51.101 (cybercrime), JM 9-85.500 (election year sensitivities), JM 9-
90.020 (national security). In such cases, the USAO or litigating division
submitting the Urgent Report should indicate the date of such notice,
consultation, or approval.

Department litigating divisions should submit Urgent Reports by email in a manner prescribed
by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. [CHANGE FROM: “to ‘Urgent Reports
Litigating Divisions.’”] USAOs must submit Urgent Reports to EOUSA through the USA-
Report system. The fact that a matter is highly sensitive or one from which others in the
Department may be recused does not relieve USAOs and Department litigating divisions
from the obligation to submit Urgent Reports. In those circumstances, USAOs should
coordinate with EOUSA and litigating divisions with ODAG concerning submission of an
Urgent Report.

[updated September 2024]

1-14.000 - Notice To DAG Required For Certain Criminal and Affirmative Civil
Resolutions

2021

A. Notwithstanding any other delegation of authority, notice of a proposed resolution in any

criminal or affirmative civil matter shall be provided to the Deputy Attorney General prior
to final agreement by the Department where the proposed resolution: (1) contains a
monetary component or components totaling $200 million or more; (2) raises legal
issues or policy questions that are non-routine and either sensitive, important, or novel;
 or (3) imposes a novel, sensitive, or unusually extensive conduct remedy or injunctive
measure.

[...]

[updated April 2018]

2024

Notwithstanding any other delegation of authority, notice of a proposed resolution in any

criminal or affirmative civil matter shall be provided to the Deputy Attorney General prior to final
agreement by the Department where the proposed resolution:

(1) contains a monetary component or components totaling $200 million or more;

(2) involves a corporate or organizational entity and will require the filing of an urgent
report as (a) a major development in a significant investigation or litigation, (b) an event
likely to generate national media or Congressional attention, or (c) a development with
significant implications on foreign relations, see JM 1-13.000 et seq. on Urgent Reports;

(3) raises legal issues or policy questions that are non-routine and either sensitive, important, or
novel;

(4) imposes a novel, sensitive, or unusually extensive conduct remedy or injunctive measure; or

(5) would result in a successive or multiple non-prosecution or deferred prosecution

agreement for a corporate or organizational entity (including affiliated entities), see JM 9-
28.600.

[...]

[updated April 2023]

1-17.000 – Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental

Third Parties

2021

The goals of a settlement agreement between the Department and a private party are to
compensate victims, redress harm, and/or punish and deter unlawful conduct. It is generally not
appropriate to use a settlement agreement to require, as a condition of settlement, payment to
non-governmental, third-party organizations who are not victims or parties to the lawsuit.
Department attorneys shall not enter into any agreement on behalf of the United States in
settlement of federal claims or charges, including agreements settling civil litigation, accepting
plea agreements, or deferring or declining prosecution in a criminal matter, that directs or
provides for a payment to any non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to the
dispute.

[...]

[new April 2018]

2024

Some settlement agreements that the Department enters into to resolve civil and criminal
matters require payments to non-governmental third parties[1] as a means of addressing
violations of federal law. When used appropriately, these agreements allow the
government to more fully [CHANGE FROM: “The goals of a settlement agreement
between the Department and a private party are to”] compensate victims, remedy harm, and
punish and deter future violations. See generally Memorandum from the Attorney General,
Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-
Governmental Third Parties (May 5, 2022). [REMOVED: “It is generally not appropriate to
use a settlement agreement to require, as a condition of settlement, payment to non-
governmental, third-party organizations who are not victims or parties to the lawsuit.
Department attorneys shall not enter into any agreement on behalf of the United States in
settlement of federal claims or charges, including agreements settling civil litigation,
accepting plea agreements, or deferring or declining prosecution in a criminal matter,
that directs or provides for a payment to any non-governmental person or entity that is
not a party to the dispute.”]

[...]

● Department components proposing a settlement involving a payment to a non-

governmental third party must obtain the approval of the Deputy Attorney General
or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate, and explain how the proposed
settlements complies with these guidelines and limitations.

[Updated August 2022]

1-20.100 - Approval of Settlement Agreements, Consent Decrees, and the Use of

Monitors in Cases Involving State and Local Governmental Entities

2024

With limited exceptions, the Department has long placed authority to determine the form
and substance of civil resolutions with state and local governmental entities in the heads
of litigating components and United States Attorneys. It has done so because they are
the Department officials most familiar with and best able to assess each particular case.

[...]
Also pursuant to Department regulations, however, a settlement agreement or consent
decree with a state or local governmental entity must be referred to the Deputy Attorney
General or the Associate Attorney General if the component head “is of the opinion
that[,] because of a question of law or policy presented . . . or for any other reason, the
proposed [resolution] should receive the personal attention of the Deputy Attorney
General or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate.” 28 C.F.R. § 0.160(d)(2). In
addition, care should be taken to comply with the notification requirements set forth in
JM 1-14.000, which requires advance notice to the Deputy Attorney General for certain
affirmative civil resolutions that meet specified significance thresholds. See JM 1-14.000
et seq.

[added January 2023]

1-20.300 – Ensuring that Monitors are Independent, Highly Qualified, and Free of
Conflicts of Interest

2024

Some settlement agreements and consent decrees with state and local governmental
entities may involve the use of a monitor. The Department has a significant interest in
ensuring that the monitor selected is independent, highly qualified, and free of conflicts
of interest.

[...]

Department attorneys seeking approval to use a monitor in a case involving a state or

local law enforcement agency should explain how the proposed monitorship complies
with this guidance. Departure from this guidance is presumptively the type of “question
of … policy presented” that “should receive the personal attention of the Deputy or
Associate Attorney General, as appropriate.” See 28 C.F.R. § 0.160(d)(2).

[added January 2023]

5-11.105 - Community Service Payments in Environmental Crimes Cases

2021

Environmental crimes often can result in widespread degradation of the environment and
threaten the health and safety of entire communities. In such circumstances, community service
may be used in conjunction with traditional criminal sentencing options, provided that the
community service comports with applicable law and furthers the purposes of sentencing set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Community service is authorized as a discretionary condition of
probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(12) and it is addressed in U.S.S.G. § 8B1.3.
Although settlement payments to third parties are generally prohibited, a limited exception exists
for payments to directly remedy harm to the environment. See Memorandum from the Attorney
General, Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Third Parties (June 5, 2017). United States
Attorneys’ Offices considering the use of community service payments by defendants in
environmental cases shall consult with ECS for guidance. See JM 9-16.325.

[updated February 2021]

2024

Environmental crimes often can result in widespread degradation of the environment and
threaten the health and safety of entire communities. In such circumstances, community service
may be used in conjunction with traditional criminal sentencing options, provided that the
community service comports with applicable law and furthers the purposes of sentencing set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Community service is authorized as a discretionary condition of
probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(12) and it is addressed in U.S.S.G. § 8B1.3.

Department attorneys considering the use of community service payments in

environmental crimes cases must consult the policy governing settlement agreements
involving payments to non-governmental third parties. See Memorandum from the
Attorney General, Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement Agreements Involving
Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties (May 5, 2022); JM 1-17.000. Department
attorneys proposing a settlement involving a payment to a non-governmental third party
must obtain the approval of the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney
General, as appropriate, and explain how the proposed payments comply with the
Memorandum’s guidelines and limitations.

[...]

[updated August 2022]

9-10.190 - Direct Appeal and Post-Conviction Proceedings

2021

After a court has imposed a sentence of death, all components involved in defending the conviction(s)
and sentence(s), including the direct appeal and collateral challenges, shall be guided by the objectives of
ensuring timely resolution of such proceedings and of implementing the capital sentence without
unwarranted delays. The following provisions are intended to ensure those objectives are faithfully
carried out.

[...]

(2) At any point during a direct appeal or post-conviction proceeding, the office must obtain the approval
of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General prior to taking any action identified below. To seek such
approval, the office must submit a brief request to the Capital Case Section (i.e., the Chief, Deputy Chief,
and assigned point-of-contact) explaining the reasons for the request and whether those reasons are
consistent with the objective of timely resolution of direct appeals and post-conviction proceedings and
will not result in unwarranted delay of implementation of the capital sentence. The Capital Case Section
will forward the request, along with its recommendation on the request, to the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General.

I. Consenting to, not opposing, or requesting a stay of the litigation, a stay of execution,
or a preliminary injunction barring the execution or the scheduling thereof;
II. Consenting to, taking a position to not oppose, or requesting to hold a case in
abeyance;
III. Consenting to or taking a position to not oppose authorization to file a successive
motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255;
IV. Consenting to or taking a position to not oppose a certificate of appealability;
V. Consenting to, not opposing, or requesting any form of relief from the sentence of
death or the conviction thereof (see, e.g., JM § 2-3.221(D));
VI. Consenting to, taking a position to not oppose, or requesting a briefing schedule
under which the parties would have more than 12 months to file their principal briefs;
VII. Consenting to, taking a position to not oppose, or requesting an extension of time
that would enlarge the period the parties have to file their principal briefs beyond a
cumulative 12-month period.

[added December 2020]

2024

After a court has imposed a sentence of death, all components involved in defending the conviction(s)
and sentence(s), including the direct appeal and collateral challenges, shall be guided by the objective of
ensuring the just resolution of such proceedings [CHANGE FROM: “ensuring timely resolution of
such proceedings and implementing the capital sentence without unwarranted delays.].

[...]

A. Database. The Capital Case Section shall create, maintain, and keep up-to-date a database for
tracking the handling, status, and progress of capital cases that are on direct appeal or post-
conviction review, which shall be accessible to the United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General, and other Department components that may be responsible for
litigating capital cases. In each case, the handling office shall be responsible for notifying the
Capital Case Section of any developments that may affect the timely resolution of the case,
including the filing of briefs, dispositive motions, extension or abeyance requests, and judicial
rulings. The Capital Case Section shall coordinate with the prosecuting office about the proper
notification of victims as to developments in the case.

[...]

A. Consultations. In carrying out the duties described herein, including when making
recommendations or providing updates to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office
of the Attorney General, the Capital Case Section shall, as appropriate, consult with the relevant
United States Attorney’s Offices, the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, the National Security
 Division’s Appellate Unit (for all national security-related cases), the Office of the Solicitor
General, and the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

[...]

If the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General concurs in a defense request for
consent to judicial relief, the Capital Review Committee will forward the request and the
Committee’s recommendation to the Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General.

If the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General opposes a defense request, the Capital
Review Committee will forward the request and the Committee’s recommendation to the Attorney
General, through the Deputy Attorney General, only if one (or more) members of the Committee
conclude that the request meets the relevant standard for relief. If no members of the Committee
conclude that a defense request meets the relevant standard for relief, the request will be denied,
and defense counsel will be so notified.

Attorney General decision

Upon receiving a recommendation from the Capital Review Committee, through the Deputy
Attorney General, the Attorney General shall make the final decision on whether to consent to
judicial relief from a death sentence or underlying conviction.

9-13.400 Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media;
and Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media

2021

Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media.

No member of the Department shall subject a member of the news media to questioning as to
any offense which he or she is suspected of having committed in the course of, or arising out of,
newsgathering activities without first providing notice to the Director of the Office of Public
Affairs and obtaining the express authorization of the Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. 50.10(f)(1).

[...]

Questioning, Charging, or arresting Members of the News Media. The Criminal Division shall
review and evaluate all requests for the authorization of the Attorney General to question,
arrest, or charge a member of the news media. Such requests should be submitted to the PSEU
at least 30 business days before the anticipated questioning, charging, or arrest, and shall
address all applicable considerations identified in 28 C.F.R. 50.10(f).

2024

[NEW SECTION:] Members of the Department shall endeavor to use the least intrusive
means possible to secure authentication of information or records that have already
been published, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(c)(1). If authentication of information or
records that have already been published requires grand jury or trial testimony from a
member of the news media, any subpoena or other process to compel such testimony,
even if issued with the consent of the member of the news media, must be authorized by
the Deputy Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(f)(1) (seeking to compel grand
jury or trial testimony).

[...]

(f) Compelled testimony. [28 C.F.R. § 50.10(f)]

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, members of the Department
must obtain the authorization of the Deputy Attorney General when seeking to compel
grand jury or trial testimony otherwise permitted by this section from any member of the
news media.

(2) When the compelled testimony under paragraph (f)(1) of this section has no nexus to
the person’s or entity’s activities as a member of the news media, members of the
Department must obtain the authorization of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division and provide prior notice to the Deputy Attorney General.

(3) Such authorization may only be granted when all other requirements of this policy
regarding compulsory legal process have been satisfied.

“Compelled testimony” is any grand jury or trial testimony compelled by any subpoena
or other process, even if issued with the consent of the member of the news media.

When seeking authorization from the Deputy Attorney General under 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(f)(1), members of the Department must provide information demonstrating that all
other requirements of the Policy regarding compulsory legal process have been
satisfied, per 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(f)(3). In situations where members of the Department are
seeking authorization to compel grand jury or trial testimony following consent by a
member of the news media, the application to the Deputy Attorney General should
establish that the appropriate Department official has properly authorized compulsory
legal process pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(i). Such applications should include a
description of (1) how the 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(g)(1)(iii) conditions were met; (2) whether the
authorizing official considered requiring satisfaction of the exhaustion conditions
described in 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(g)(1)(i) and (ii), and if they were not required per 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(g)(2), the reason(s) these conditions were not appropriate; and (3) how the
authorizing official took into account the conditions described in 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(h)(2).

When providing “prior notice” to the Deputy Attorney General under 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(f)(2), members of the Department should, absent extraordinary circumstances,
provide that notice in writing at least 10 business days prior to seeking to compel
testimony from a member of the news media.

In the course of authorizing requests otherwise permitted by this Policy to seek

compulsion orders pursuant to Section 9-23.130 of the Justice Manual (relating to
witness immunity), a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division will
determine whether there is a “nexus” to the witness’s activities as a member of the news
media such that the authorization of the Deputy Attorney General would be required.
When making this “nexus” determination, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division must consider whether either direct examination or potential cross-
examination may solicit responsive testimony bearing a “nexus” to the witness’s
activities as a member of the news media.
[...]

(m) Arresting or charging a member of the news media. [28 C.F.R. § 50.10(m)]

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (m)(2) of this section or in circumstances in which

prior authorization is not possible, members of the Department must obtain the
authorization of the Deputy Attorney General to seek a warrant for an arrest, conduct an
arrest, present information to a grand jury seeking a bill of indictment, or file an
information against a member of the news media.

If a matter has been authorized by the Deputy Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §
50.10(m)(1), additional authorization is required prior to seeking a superseding
indictment or superseding information against a member of the news media, even if
related to the previously authorized charges.

(2) Except in circumstances in which prior authorization is not possible, when the arrest
or charging of a member of the news media under paragraph (m)(1) of this section has no
nexus to the person’s or entity’s activities as a member of the news media, members of
the Department must obtain the authorization of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division and provide prior notice to the Deputy Attorney General.

9-16.325 - Guidelines and Limitations for Agreements Involving Payments to Non-

Governmental Third Parties

2021

Department attorneys may not enter into any agreement on the behalf of the United States in
settlement of federal claims or charges, including agreements settling civil litigation, accepting
plea agreements, or deferring or declining prosecution in a criminal matter, that directs or
provides for a payment or loan to any non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to
the dispute.
2024

Department attorneys considering the use of plea agreements, deferred prosecution

agreements, or non-prosecution agreements involving a payment to a non-governmental
third party must consult the guidelines and limitations governing such agreements. See
Memorandum from the Attorney General, Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement
Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties (May 5, 2022); JM 1-
17.000. Department attorneys proposing an agreement involving a payment to a non-
governmental third party must obtain the approval of the Deputy Attorney General or the
Associate Attorney General, as appropriate, and explain how the proposed payments
comply with the Memorandum’s guidelines and limitations. See id. As noted in the
Attorney General’s Memorandum, no approval is required for the following types of
settlements: (1) Otherwise lawful payments or loans, in cash or in kind, that provide
restitution or compensation to a victim or that otherwise directly remedy the harm
sought to be redressed; (2) in cases of foreign official corruption, payments to a trusted
third party when required to facilitate the repatriation and use of funds to directly benefit
those harmed by the foreign corruption; (3) payments for legal or other professional
services rendered in connection with the case; and (4) payments that are expressly
authorized by statute or regulation, including restitution and forfeiture. See id.

9-28.600 - The Corporation's History of Misconduct

2021

A. General Principle: Prosecutors may consider a corporation's history of similar conduct,

including prior criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions against it, in
determining whether to bring criminal charges and how best to resolve cases.
B. Comment: A corporation, like a natural person, is expected to learn from its mistakes. A
history of similar misconduct may be probative of a corporate culture that encouraged, or
at least condoned, such misdeeds, regardless of any compliance programs. Criminal
prosecution of a corporation may be particularly appropriate where the corporation
previously had been subject to non-criminal guidance, warnings, or sanctions, or
previous criminal charges, and it either had not taken adequate action to prevent future
unlawful conduct or had continued to engage in the misconduct in spite of the warnings
or enforcement actions taken against it. The corporate structure itself (e.g., the creation
or existence of subsidiaries or operating divisions) is not dispositive in this analysis, and
enforcement actions taken against the corporation or any of its divisions, subsidiaries,
and affiliates may be considered, if germane. See USSG § 8C2.5(c), cmt. (n. 6).
[new August 2008]

2024

A. General Principle: Prosecutors should consider a corporation’s history of misconduct,

including prior domestic or international criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions and
resolutions, in determining whether to bring criminal charges and how best to resolve cases.
Not all instances of a corporation’s prior misconduct are equally relevant or probative. In
assessing a corporation’s history of misconduct, prosecutors should consider the
following non-exhaustive list of factors:

1. The amount of time that has elapsed since the prior criminal, civil, or regulatory
action or resolution concluded, the duration of the conduct underlying the prior
resolution, and whether the conduct at issue in the current investigation occurred
before, at the same time, or after the conduct underlying the prior resolution;

2. Whether a prior action or resolution was criminal, civil, or regulatory, and whether
it involved U.S. federal or state authorities or foreign authorities;

3. The seriousness and pervasiveness of the conduct underlying the prior action or
resolution, and the role, if any, of senior management in that conduct;

4. Whether the conduct underlying the prior action or resolution was similar in
nature to the conduct currently under investigation (including similar conduct
prosecuted under different statutes), involved the same personnel, or shared the
same root cause as the conduct currently under investigation;

5. The form and terms of a prior resolution, including any factual admissions made
by the corporation;

6. Whether, during the conduct that is the subject of the current investigation, the
corporation was serving a term of probation or was subject to supervision,
monitorship, or other obligation imposed by prior resolutions;

7. Whether the conduct at issue in the prior and current matters reflects broader
weaknesses in the corporation’s compliance culture or practices;

8. Whether the prior action or resolution involved a corporate entity related to the
corporation and the relationship between the related entity and the corporation,
including whether the entities have common management or share compliance
resources;

9. Whether the corporation under investigation operates in a highly regulated

industry, and, if so, whether the corporation’s history of regulatory actions is
comparable to that of similarly situated companies in the industry; and

10. Whether the corporation voluntarily self-disclosed the conduct giving rise to the
current matter or prior action(s) or resolution(s).
To aid in this effort, prosecutors should request that corporations prepare and produce a
list and summary of all prior criminal resolutions within the last ten years, as well as any
known pending investigations by U.S. (federal and state) and foreign government
authorities. Attorneys for the government may tailor (or expand) this request to obtain
the information that would be most relevant to the Department's analysis.

B. Comment: A corporation, like a natural person, is expected to learn from its mistakes. A
history of misconduct may be probative of a corporate culture that encouraged, or at least
condoned, such misdeeds, regardless of any compliance programs. Such a history may also
reflect an inadequate system of compliance policies and controls and/or a lack of
commitment by senior management to implementing and sustaining an effective
compliance program. Criminal prosecution of a corporation may be particularly appropriate
where the corporation previously had been subject to non-criminal guidance, warnings, or
sanctions, or previous criminal charges, and it either had not taken adequate action to prevent
future unlawful conduct or had continued to engage in the misconduct in spite of the warnings or
enforcement actions taken against it. The corporate structure itself (e.g., the creation or
existence of subsidiaries or operating divisions) is not dispositive in this analysis, and
enforcement actions taken against the corporation or any of its divisions, subsidiaries, and
affiliates may be considered, if germane. See U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5(c), cmt. (n. 6).

Which factors are most relevant, and how to weigh these factors, will be a fact-specific
determination in each case. In general, however, prosecutors weighing these factors
should assign the greatest significance to recent U.S. criminal resolutions, and to
conduct involving the same personnel or occurring under the same management as the
conduct under investigation. Greater significance should also be placed upon prior
criminal resolutions that involved similar types of misconduct at either the same or a
closely-related entity. Dated conduct, such as prior criminal resolutions entered into
more than ten years before the conduct currently under investigation, and prior civil or
regulatory resolutions that were finalized more than five years before the conduct under
investigation, should generally be accorded less weight (with the weight growing the
closer in time or in nature the conduct is to the present conduct). Prior resolutions
involving remote entities within the corporate family (e.g., entities that do not have
common management or share compliance resources), as well as prior resolutions that
did not result in a criminal disposition, also should be accorded less weight. Such
conduct may be generally less reflective of the corporation’s current compliance culture,
program, and risk tolerance. However, the analysis should remain fact-bound and
individualized, even for older misconduct.

When evaluating charges or resolution terms for a corporation that previously entered
into a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement, prosecutors should consider
and scrutinize whether a successive non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement
would be appropriate under the circumstances. Multiple non-prosecution or deferred
prosecution agreements are generally disfavored, especially where the matters at issue
involve recent or similar types of misconduct; the same personnel, officers, or
executives; or the same entities. Before making a corporate resolution offer that would
result in multiple non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements for a corporation
(including its affiliated entities), Department prosecutors must secure the written
approval of the responsible U.S. Attorney or Assistant Attorney General and provide
notice to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) in the manner set forth in
Section 1-14.000. Notice provided to ODAG pursuant to Section 1-14.000 and this
provision must be made with sufficient timeliness to enable careful review, but in no
circumstance less than ten business days prior to issuing an offer to the corporation,
absent extraordinary circumstances.

While multiple deferred or non-prosecution agreements are generally disfavored,

prosecutors should nonetheless incentivize and reward corporations that voluntarily
self-disclose misconduct, even where such corporations have entered into prior
resolutions. A timely voluntary self-disclosure not only reveals misconduct at a
corporation; it can also reflect that a corporation is appropriately working to detect
misconduct and taking seriously its responsibility to instill and act upon a culture of
compliance. In keeping with Section 9-28.900, when weighing a corporation’s history of
misconduct, Department prosecutors must appropriately credit voluntary and timely self-
disclosures of current and prior conduct.

From time to time, when conducting an assessment of a corporation’s prior misconduct,

prosecutors will confront situations where the prior misconduct occurred at an entity
(the “acquired entity”) that was subsequently acquired by the corporation now subject to
the current investigation (the “acquiror”). In those situations, prosecutors should
consider whether and to what extent they will assign weight to the misconduct involving
the acquired entity. As a general matter, for the purposes of determining an acquiror’s
prior misconduct, prosecutors should assign minimal weight to pre-acquisition
misconduct that occurred at an acquired entity, where prosecutors determine that the
acquiror has effectively integrated the acquired entity into a well-designed compliance
program and remediated both the prior misconduct and its root causes.

In situations where an acquiror qualifies for a presumption of declination pursuant to

Section 9-28.900(A)(3) (i.e., the acquiror voluntarily self-disclosed, fully cooperated, and
timely and appropriately remediated misconduct uncovered while conducting due
diligence related to the acquisition), the prosecution team should assign zero weight to
the acquired entity’s misconduct for the purposes of determining the acquiror’s history
of misconduct under Section 9-28.600(A).[1]

[updated May 2024]

9-28.1720 - Selection of Monitor

2024
[ALL NEW]

A. General Principle: A monitor must be qualified for the position based on the facts and
circumstances of the case and the intended scope and duties of the monitorship. The
selection process must be transparent, merit-based, and conducted in a manner free
from conflicts of interest. Monitor selections shall be made in keeping with the
Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, and prosecutors should consider
monitors from a diverse set of backgrounds.

[...]

The Office of the Deputy Attorney General must approve the monitor selection for all
cases in which a monitor is recommended, unless the monitor is court-appointed.

9-48.000 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

2024

[NEW SECTION]

Notification to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General

When an office has consulted with CCIPS and intends to charge a CFAA case in a
manner contrary to a written recommendation invoking this paragraph, that office shall
inform the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before charging. This policy does not
affect the existing relevant procedures for appealing an NSD decision not to approve a
CFAA case involving international terrorism or domestic terrorism, or that affects,
involves, or relates to the national security. In no instance will an office charge a
defendant with “exceeding authorized access” or “exceeds authorized access” contrary
to a recommendation from CCIPS without approval from the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General.