Showing 1151–1160 of 2214

• 10/13/1981

  Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to a Congressional Subpoena

  Executive privilege can and should be asserted to withhold deliberative, predecisional documents from Congress, where release of the documents would seriously impair the deliberative process and the conduct of foreign policy, and where Congress' only stated interest in obtaining the documents is for general oversight purposes. Where Congress has a legitimate need for information that will help it legislate, and the Executive Branch has a legitimate constitutionally recognized need to keep information confidential, each branch has an obligation to make a principled effort to accommodate the needs of the other. 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/22551/download.

  10/13/1981

• 10/9/1981

  Executive Privilege

  The document discusses the concept of executive privilege and its historical basis, as well as the problems faced by the Executive Branch in responding to congressional demands for information. It concludes that the lack of coordination, clear rules, and belligerence from some members of Congress are the primary issues. The document presents two possible approaches to address these problems: adopting a firmer attitude towards executive privilege or reissuing the Nixon Memorandum as the "Reagan Memorandum" with modifications and improvements. The questions presented for review include the need for clearer legal rules to guide decision-making, the lack of coordination in responding to congressional demands, and the potential political damage of adopting a firmer attitude towards executive privilege.

  10/27/2020

• 10/7/1981

  The Legislative Veto and Congressional Review of Agency Rules

  The following testimony discusses the constitutional objections to legislative vetoes, which are grounded in principles of presentation, bicameralism, and separation of powers. The testimony also describes and responds to several theories advanced in support of the constitutionality of legislative vetoes. Finally, it outlines the Reagan Administration's policy objections to legislative vetoes in the broader context of congressional review of agency actions, and suggests alternative ways in which Congress may provide meaningful legislative oversight of executive action consistent with applicable constitutional principles. 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/22776/download.

  10/7/1981

• 10/6/1981

  Return of Evidentiary Bribe Moneys

  The document is a memorandum to the Attorney General regarding the return of evidentiary bribe moneys. The conclusion reached in the document is that there is a lack of consistency among district courts in handling bribe money received into evidence, and the proposed remedy is to advise the Chief Justice and suggest referral of the issue to the Judicial Conference. The questions presented for review include whether courts are in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3612 in handling bribe money during the pendency of an appeal, and the appropriate handling of bribe money after final disposition of the case. Additionally, the document raises the question of whether the problem can be resolved by direction to the United States Attorneys instead of involving the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference.

  7/27/2020

• 10/6/1981

  Applicability of National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), to the generation and distribution of electric power by State and local governments.

  The document is a response to a letter from Mr. T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Solicitor of Labor at the U.S. Department of Labor. The response provides a minor suggestion for a draft letter to Senator Nunn regarding the applicability of National League of Cities v. Usery to the generation of electric power by state and local governments. The conclusion reached is that the last paragraph of the draft letter should be rewritten to accurately reflect the differences between the various opinions written in the City of Lafayette case. The document presents questions regarding the proposed letter to Senator Nunn and seeks to ensure that the suggested change will satisfy Senator Nunn.

  7/27/2020

• 10/6/1981

  Subpoena Issued to Secretary Watt by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

  The document is a memorandum discussing a subpoena issued to Secretary Watt by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The memorandum concludes that at least some of the documents requested by the subpoena would be subject to a valid claim of privilege as against the Subcommittee. The questions presented for review include whether a valid claim of privilege might be asserted by the President regarding any of the documents covered by the subpoena, and whether all the documents could be turned over to the Subcommittee by the specified deadline. The memorandum also outlines the interagency review process and recommends notifying the Subcommittee of the ongoing review.

  10/27/2020

• 10/6/1981

  The Merit Pay System and Conflicts of Interest Principles

  In this memo, the OLC explored “whether statutes or regulations governing conflicts of interest would be violated if a department supervisor covered by the merit pay system prepared an initial review, subject to reviews by a superior official, of the performance of employees who also are covered by merit pay, and whose merit pay salary adjustment will come from the same merit pay 'pool' as the supervisor’s adjustments.” In answering this question, the OLC considered 18 U.S.C. § 208 and the applicable standards of conduct in Executive Order No. 11222. It advised structuring the merit pay system to avoid this scenario given the risk of litigation and the possibiltiy that an adverse ruling could disrupt the Justice Department’s pay scheme.

  5/16/2022

• 10/2/1981

  Bank Deposit of Government Funds

  The document is a legal opinion on the legality of a proposed undercover operation to launder money for narcotic trafficking organizations. The conclusion reached is that bank deposits of violator-provided funds can be approved, but strict accounting procedures must be followed. The document raises questions about the limitations imposed by specific statutes on bank deposits of government funds, as well as the distinction between government and non-government funds in terms of legal constraints and accounting requirements. It also presents the issue of potential liability to third parties and the need for protection of public funds.

  7/27/2020

• 10/1/1981

  Proposed cooperative agreement for the administration of St. Paul's Church can be implemented in a manner consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

  The document is a response to a letter from the Deputy Solicitor regarding the implementation of a proposed cooperative agreement for the administration of St. Paul's Church in Eastchester, New York. The conclusion reached is that there is no basis to object to the execution of the proposed agreement, as the church is no longer an active parish and the property has been conditionally conveyed to the United States. The document presents questions for review regarding the interpretation and management of the property, as well as the involvement of the Episcopal Church in the Corporation's Board of Directors.

  7/27/2020

• 9/29/1981

  Federal Bureau of Investigation Participation in Wire Interceptions in Cases Where It Lacks Investigative Responsibility

  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may be judicially authorized to participate in Title III interceptions of wire or oral communications directed at narcotics-related offenses, even though the Drug Enforcement Administration and not the FBI has general investigative responsibility for such offenses. The plain language of §2516(1) authorizes the FBI to participate in court-approved interceptions directed at any of the offenses listed in that section, and the legislative history lends support to its " plain meaning" interpretation. 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/22771/download.

  9/29/1981