Showing 1081–1090 of 2202

• 5/6/1982

  Constitutionality of Legislation Limiting the Remedial Powers of the Inferior Federal Courts in School Desegregation Litigation

  Proposed legislative restriction on the power of the inferior federal courts to order busing remedies in school desegregation litigation cannot be justified as an exercise of congressional power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, if such a restriction would prevent a court from fully remedying a constitutional violation. Proposed legislation can be justified as an exercise of congressional power under Article III, § 1 of the Constitution, which gives Congress very broad power to control the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts. The bill does not usurp the judicial function by depriving the lower courts of power to hear desegregation cases and to impose remedies which do not involve busing, nor does it instruct the lower courts how to decide issues of fact in pending cases, or require reversal of any outstanding court order. The bill's provision prohibiting the Department of Justice from using appropriated funds to bring or maintain an action to require busing is constitutional despite the limitations that it would impose on the Executive's discretion, since it does not preclude the Department from fulfilling its statutory obligation to enforce the law through seeking other effective remedies or objecting to inadequate desegregation plans. Both the limitation on courts and on the Department of Justice should be upheld if challenged under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, since neither limitation creates a racial classification nor evidences a discriminatory purpose. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22871/download.

  5/6/1982

• 5/6/1982

  Constitutionality of Legislation Withdrawing Supreme Court Jurisdiction to Consider Cases Relating to Voluntary Prayer

  Proposed legislation withdrawing jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to consider cases relating to voluntary prayer in public schools and public buildings raises difficult and unsettled constitutional questions under the separation of powers doctrine. While Congress possesses some power under the Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it may not interfere with the core functions of the Supreme Court as an independent and equal branch in our system of government. The records of the Constitutional Convention, as well as the structure of the system of government adopted by that Convention, establish that the Exceptions Clause was not intended to allow Congress to intrude upon the Supreme Court's core functions. There is no basis in Supreme Court precedent, or in long accepted historical practice, for reaching a contrary conclusion. Whether a given exception to Supreme Court jurisdiction intrudes upon its core functions depends upon a number of factors, such as whether the exception covers constitutional or nonconstitutional questions, the extent to which the subject is one which by its nature requires uniformity or permits diversity among the different states and different parts of the country, the extent to which Supreme Court review is necessary to ensure the supremacy of federal law, and whether other forums or remedies have been left in place so that the intrusion can properly be characterized as an exception. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/22876/download.

  5/6/1982

• 4/19/1982

  Constitutionality of Bills Limiting Supreme Court Jurisdiction

  9/2/2022

• 4/19/1982

  Executive Privilege

  This set of memoranda, written by Ted Olson, provided the proposed Reagan administration position on the invocation of executive privilege. In the memos, Olson pointed to three problems with congressional demands for information: “(a) belligerence on the part of some members of Congress; (b) a lack of Executive Branch coordination; and (c) a lack of clear rules to guide decision.” Olson pointed to the Nixon administration’s position as a starting point, but suggested that the Reagan administration may wish to go further to discourage voluntary compliance with demands for information on the part of executive agencies, and to remove the requirement of the president’s personal involvement with the invocation of the privilege.

  9/2/2022

• 4/7/1982

  Busing

  9/2/2022

• 4/6/1982

  Executive Privilege - Reagan Memorandum

  This set of memoranda, written by Ted Olson, provided the proposed Reagan administration position on the invocation of executive privilege. In the memos, Olson pointed to three problems with congressional demands for information: “(a) belligerence on the part of some members of Congress; (b) a lack of Executive Branch coordination; and (c) a lack of clear rules to guide decision.” Olson pointed to the Nixon administration’s position as a starting point, but suggested that the Reagan administration may wish to go further to discourage voluntary compliance with demands for information on the part of executive agencies, and to remove the requirement of the president’s personal involvement with the invocation of the privilege.

  9/2/2022

• 3/29/1982

  Installation of Slot Machines on U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay

  Section 5 of the Anti-Slot Machine Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1175, prohibits the installation or operation of slot machines on any land where the United States government exercises exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, including military bases outside the United States. This interpretation of the plain words of § 1175 finds support in its legislative history, which reveals that Congress intended it not only to assist the states in enforcing their anti-slot machine laws, but also to establish a uniform federal policy against the use of such gambling devices in areas under federal jurisdiction. Under the terms of the lease agreement between the United States and Cuba, the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay constitutes land "acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of 15 U S.C. § 1175. Accordingly, no slot machines may be installed or operated on that base. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23016/download.

  3/29/1982

• 3/26/1982

  Disclosure of Parolees' Names to Local Police

  United States Parole Commission's proposed disclosure of information on parolees to local law enforcement authorities could be justified as a "routine use" under the Privacy Act. However, in a case where there is no reason to suspect the involvement of a particular individual in criminal activity, such blanket disclosure could be challenged as an unwarranted expansion of the "routine use" exception. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23006/download.

  3/26/1982

• 3/26/1982

  Statutory Authority for Commodity Credit Corporation Export Credit Guarantee Programs

  Certain programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, guaranteeing export credit sales of Americanagricultural exports, are authorized by the Corporation's charter act. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23011/download.

  3/26/1982

• 3/25/1982

  Employer's Rental of an Employee's Residence During His Participation in the President's Executive Exchange Program

  An employer may rent an employee's house during his participation in the President's Executive Exchange Program on the same basis as any ordinary renter. However, 18 U.S.C. § 209 would prohibit an arrangement whereby the employer would rent without using the property or permit the employee to have continued access to the property, because this would have the effect of subsidizing the employee's government service. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23001/download.

  3/25/1982