Showing 1181–1190 of 2214

• 7/29/1981

  Whether the United States Postal Service (Service) is an "Executive agency" within the meaning of Executive Order 12250. 45 Fed. Reg. 72995 (1980).

  This document discusses whether the United States Postal Service should be considered an "Executive agency" under Executive Order 12250, which grants the Attorney General authority to coordinate nondiscrimination provisions. The conclusion reached is that the Postal Service should not be included as an "Executive agency" due to its unique status as an independent establishment of the executive branch, with insulation from control by the President. The document presents questions about the intent underlying the Order, the statutory authority to subject the Postal Service to the control of the Attorney General, and the lack of an explicit statement in the Order including the Postal Service. It also raises the issue of which statutes covered by the Order are applicable to the Postal Service.

  7/27/2020

• 7/29/1981

  Legislation Prohibiting Payment of Interest on Compensation Awards Under the 1980 Omnibus Territories Act

  Congress may eliminate or modify claims which are purely statutory without violating the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, unless those claims have ripened into final judgments. Thus, legislative repeal of a provision requiring payment of interest on compensation awards authorized by 48 U.S.C. § 1424c is constitutionally permissible, except insofar as it purports to affect cases in which an award of damages has become final. 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/22721/download.

  7/29/1981

• 7/29/1981

  Status of the United States Postal Service as an "Executive Agency" Under Executive Order No. 12,250

  In light of the statutory independence given the United States Postal Service (Service) and its officers, Executive Order No. 12,250 should not be construed to include the Service as an "Executive agency" subject to the Attorney General's nondiscrimination coordination authority. 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/22726/download.

  7/29/1981

• 7/28/1981

  Constitutionality of Proposed Revisions of the Export Administration Regulations

  Proposed revisions of the Export Administration Regulations dealing with the export of technical data to foreign nationals apply a prior restraint, in the form of a licensing requirement, to a wide variety of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is thus a considerable likelihood that in their current form the regulations would be invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The regulations would also be vulnerable to constitutional attack on grounds of vagueness. If the regulations were cast not as a licensing scheme but as a form of subsequent punishment, they could cover a far broader range of conduct. A licensing system is likely to be held constitutional only if it applies narrowly to exports which are likely to produce grave harm under the test set forth in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). 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/22716/download.

  7/28/1981

• 7/17/1981

  Constitutionality of the Death Penalty Provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1111

  Because of the unfettered discretion conferred on the sentencing authority by 18 U.S.C. § 1111, the death penalty may not constitutionally be imposed under that statute. In the absence of express legislative authorization, federal district judges have no power to devise procedures which would satisfy the requirements dictated by the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions. 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/22711/download.

  7/17/1981

• 7/16/1981

  Constitutional Issues Raised by Provisions Removing or Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction in Abortion, School Prayer, Busing and Draft Registration Bills

  This opinion examines whether Congress has the constitutional authority to remove or limit federal court jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, school prayer, busing, and registration for the draft. The opinion concludes that while Congress has substantial power under the constitution to limit lower federal court jurisdiction, there are limits to congressional power to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction due to the Supremacy Clause. 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 https://justice.gov/olc/page/file/936101/download.

  7/16/1981

• 7/13/1981

  Congressional Limitations on Federal Court Jurisdiction

  The document is a memorandum to the Attorney General discussing Congressional limitations on federal court jurisdiction. It includes a review of materials supplied by Senator Helms, which consists of legal arguments and court cases related to the issue. The conclusion reached is that the materials do not add anything beyond what has already been studied, and the core argument is that the Supreme Court could be stripped of all power to hear cases involving the Constitution of the United States and conflicts between state and federal laws. The document presents questions about the literal interpretation of the Exceptions Clause and the potential consequences of limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

  7/27/2020

• 7/13/1981

  INS Proposal for Minimum Mandatory Bond

  The document is a memorandum responding to a request for an opinion on the constitutionality of imposing a minimum \$500 bond on all aliens arrested for immigration law violations. The conclusion reached is that such a regulation would be constitutionally permissible, as it is a reasonable way to reduce the number of abscondees. The questions presented for review include whether the proposed minimum mandatory bond would be constitutional under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and whether the denial of bail would be upheld as long as there is any basis in fact for the agency's decision.

  7/27/2020

• 7/7/1981

  Whether members of the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots (WASPS) are entitled to a veterans' preference

  The document is a memorandum responding to a request for an opinion on whether members of the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots (WASPS) are entitled to a veterans' preference. The conclusion reached is that the WASPS are not entitled to a veterans' preference based on an examination of the legislative history of the WASPS' statute and the veterans' preference statute. The document also presents questions for review regarding the limitations of benefits available to the WASPS and the possibility of legislative modifications to allow them to qualify for a veterans' preference.

  7/27/2020

• 7/6/1981

  The Attorney General's Authority to Represent the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission

  Under the international agreement creating the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission and its implementing legislation, the Attorney General may provide free legal representation to the Commission. However, he is under no obligation to do so, particularly where a conflict of interest would make questionable the appropriateness of such representation. The Attorney General's statutory obligation to "supervise and control" litigation of the Commission in courts of the United States does not require him to conduct such litigation, or retain private counsel on behalf of the Commission, any more than it empowers him to control access by this international body to U.S. courts. It only means that when the Attorney General does conduct or finance litigation of the Commission, he must retain supervision and control over it. In cases where the Commission is suing an agency of the United States, it is appropriate for the Department to refuse the Commission's request for representation. The Department also may withdraw from representation of the Commission that has already been undertaken, as long as such withdrawal is accomplished in accordance with applicable American Bar Association standards. 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/22706/download.

  7/6/1981