Showing 1191–1200 of 2214

• 7/2/1981

  Powers Available in the Event of a Cuban Boatlift

  This document is a memorandum responding to questions about the powers available to the President in the event of a Cuban boatlift. The conclusions reached in the document include the limitations on the President's powers to prohibit U.S. registered vessels from traveling to Cuba without a license, the Coast Guard's authority to seize and return vessels suspected of transporting illegal aliens, and the legal jurisdiction for prosecuting violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The questions presented for review include the possibility of returning American or foreign-flag vessels to their last port of call, the use of roadblocks to exclude cars from the Key West area, and the closure of ports in Southern Florida to high-risk vessels.

  7/27/2020

• 7/1/1981

  Questions Concerning Lobbying by Federal Grantees

  The document is a memorandum addressing questions concerning lobbying by federal grantees. It reviews an "anti-lobbying" rider that applies to current appropriations for specific departments and agencies. The document includes a collection of memoranda, letters, and other documents that pertain to activities of six federal grantees apparently calculated to influence legislation or appropriations pending before Congress. The memorandum concludes that the grantees' activities depicted are contrary to the terms of the rider, and it discusses the power to cut off funds and the most expeditious processes for doing so. The questions presented for review include whether violations of law have been committed by the grantees, whether the appropriations rider grants or denies power to funding agencies to cut off unexpended funds to grantee violators, and the processes by which the funding agencies may effect the most expeditious funds cutoffs.

  7/27/2020

• 7/1/1981

  Authority of the Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Over Anonymous Allegations of Wrongdoing

  Anonymous complaints do not trigger the statutory scheme by which the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC), Merit Systems Protection Board, investigates allegations of wrongdoing within an agency; however, such complaints may be forwarded to the head of the affected agency by the OSC in its discretion, to be dealt with by the agency. 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/22701/download.

  7/1/1981

• 7/1/1981

  Constitutionality of the Proposed Revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations

  Proposed revision of the "technical data" provision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) redefines and narrows the class of transactions that are subject to a licensing requirement under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, in an attempt to avoid imposing a prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment; however, even as revised the ITAR can have a number of constitutionally impermissible applications. The licensing requirement in the ITAR may constitutionally be applied to transactions involving arrangements entered into by exporters to assist foreign enterprises in the acquisition or use of technology; it may also be applied to transactions involving the dissemination of technical data for the purpose of promoting the sale of technical data or items on the Munitions List, since the prior restraint doctrine has only limited applicability to "commercial speech." However, insofar as it could be applied to persons who have no connection with any foreign enterprise, who disseminate technical data in circumstances in which there is no more than a belief or a reasonable basis for believing that the data might be taken abroad by foreign nationals and used there in the manufacture of arms, the licensing requirement is presumptively unconstitutional as a prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment. It is not certain whether a court would find that the revised ITAR are so substantially overbroad as to be void and unenforceable in all their applications, or decide to save the regulations through a narrowing construction. The best legal solution is for the Department of State, not the courts, to narrow the ITAR so as to make it less likely that they will apply to protected speech in constitutionally impermissible circumstances. 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/22696/download.

  7/1/1981

• 6/26/1981

  INS Instructions to Field Offices on Chadha-Related Cases

  The document is a response to a request for advice on issuing instructions to Immigration and Naturalization field offices regarding the effects of the court of appeals’ decision in Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The conclusion reached is that when Congress "vetoes" an INS decision, the Department is under a statutory obligation to carry out the instruction in the controlling statutes. The document presents questions about the possible effects of the Chadha decision on similar cases and whether the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in the Chadha case should be viewed as displacing the statutory obligation in other cases. It also raises the issue of prior Presidents instructing their subordinates to disregard the exercise by Congress of statutory "legislative veto" power.

  7/27/2020

• 6/26/1981

  OPM Authority to Regulate Reductions-in-Force in the Career Senior Executive Service

  The document responds to questions regarding proposed Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations governing reductions-in-force (RIF's) for career appointees to the Senior Executive Service (SES). The conclusions reached in the document are: OPM is authorized to issue a rule governing RIF's of career SES appointees, and OPM is legally required to guarantee SES "fall-back rights" in a RIF only to those career SES employees serving their probationary year. The document also presents a legal analysis of OPM's authority and policy analysis of the fall-back rights issue, recommending a rewrite of the legal analysis before publication. The document raises questions about OPM's authority to regulate SES RIF's and the requirement to guarantee placement for removed SES appointees in non-SES civil service positions. The questions presented for review include whether OPM is authorized to regulate RIF's of career SES appointees and whether OPM is required to guarantee placement in the competitive or excepted civil service to removed SES appointees. The document also provides a brief review of federal personnel law and key terms to clarify the analysis that follows. It discusses the authority of OPM to regulate a wide range of personnel practices affecting all components of the civil service and the implications of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) on SES appointments and removals. Additionally, the document addresses the legal analysis of OPM's authority to regulate SES RIF's and the analysis of fall-back rights for career SES appointees. It concludes with recommendations for rewriting the legal analysis and clarifying the policy position on fall-back rights.

  10/27/2020

• 6/26/1981

  Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 205 to Union Organizing Activities of Department of Justice Employee

  The representational bar in 18 U.S.C. § 205 applies to union organizing activities of a federal employee in which he acts as "agent or attorney" for other federal employees before their agency. The definition of "agency" in 18 U.S.C. § 6 is an expansive one, which establishes a presumption that a governmental entity is an agency for purposes of a given criminal offense, including offenses involving a conflict of interest, and includes entities in the legislative branch. Even if certain provisions in Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) specifically protect a federal employee's organizational and representational activities under that Act, notwithstanding the general bar in § 205, those provisions do not apply in this case because the employee group seeking recognition is not a "labor organization" under the CSRA. 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/22686/download.

  6/26/1981

• 6/26/1981

  Disaster Assistance and the Supremacy Clause

  As an agency of the United States, acting pursuant to a valid delegation of the President's statutory authority to provide disaster assistance to states, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is not subject to state regulations or prohibitions which would impede the performance of its federal functions. However, the Supremacy Clause cannot be relied upon by FEMA to shield it from all state regulation of or objections to its disaster relief activities. 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/22691/download.

  6/26/1981

• 6/24/1981

  Civil Division's Recommendations concerning Reimbursement of Legal Expenses

  The document is a memorandum from the Department of Justice regarding the reimbursement of legal expenses for federal employees. The Civil Division has made two policy recommendations, one being that the Department should not reimburse employees for expenses incurred in the defense of federal criminal proceedings. The second recommendation is that the Department should not reimburse an employee for legal expenses incurred in a related civil action during the pendency of a federal criminal proceeding. The document also discusses the Attorney General's authority to provide legal representation for government employees and the limitations on that authority. It also addresses the issue of reimbursing employees for legal expenses incurred in nonfederal actions arising out of the performance of their official duties.

  7/27/2020

• 6/23/1981

  Standards for Inmate Grievance Procedures

  The document discusses the standards for inmate grievance procedures required by the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. It outlines the proposed changes to the minimum standards and certification procedures, including the withdrawal of the certification procedures and the substitution of new proposed certification procedures. The document also presents amendments to the minimum standards for inmate grievance procedures, such as simplification and clarification of the standards. The questions presented for review include the evaluation of the proposed changes, the impact on small entities, and the certification process for inmate grievance procedures. Additionally, the document addresses the notification of courts regarding the certification status of grievance procedures.

  7/27/2020