Showing 1261–1270 of 2214

• 1/23/1981

  Restructuring the Relationship Between the Federal Government and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

  No impermissible conflict of interest arises from the practical identity of grantor and grantee of federal funds, where such an arrangement has been authorized by federal statute. No separation of powers concern is implicated by Congress's appropriation of funds directly to a private entity whose functions relate exclusively to the flow of information; nor does this situation raise a problem of excessive delegation of government authority to the private sector. 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/22576/download.

  1/23/1981

• 1/19/1981

  Disclosure of Information

  The document is a response to a request for an opinion on whether the Attorney General has the authority to disclose certain information gathered by the FBI regarding an individual employed by a federal judge. The conclusion reached is that the disclosure to the judge is permissible unless restricted by the Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Foreign Intelligence Collection and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations. However, there is no authority to permit disclosure to the security officer. The document presents questions related to the constitutional prohibition against dissemination of information, the Privacy Act, and the Security Procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It also raises the issue of whether the information under consideration for disclosure may be disclosed to the judge under the guidelines.

  7/27/2020

• 1/19/1981

  Legality of the International Agreement with Iran and Its Implementing Executive Orders (I)

  Executive orders providing for the establishment of escrow accounts with the Bank of England and the Central Bank of Algeria, directing the transfer of previously blocked Iranian government assets to those accounts, and nullifying all interests in the assets other than the interests of Iran and its agents, are within the President's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Banks and other holders of Iranian assets need not await formal vacation of court-ordered attachments before complying with transfer orders, since they as well as Executive Branch officials are relieved from any liability for actions taken in good faith in reliance on the IEEPA. Executive order prohibiting the prosecution of any claims against Iran arising from the hostage seizure, and terminating any previously instituted judicial proceedings based on such a claim, is within the President's authority under the IEEPA and the Hostage Act. The order does not purport to preclude any claimant from petitioning Congress for relief in connection with his claim, nor could it constitutionally do so. Provisions of executive order blocking property of the former Shah's estate and that of his close relatives, and requiring all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury information about this property to be made available to the government of Iran, are within the President's authority under the IEEPA. Proposed order also directs the Attorney General to assert in appropriate courts that claims of Iran for recovery of this property are not barred by foreign sovereign immunity or act of state doctrines, and asserts that all Iranian decrees relating to the former Shah and his family should be enforced in courts of the United States. The President has constitutionally and congressionally conferred authority to enter an agreement designating the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal as the sole forum for determination of claims by the United States or its nationals against Iran, and to confer upon the Tribunal jurisdiction over claims against the United States. 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/22421/download.

  1/19/1981

• 1/16/1981

  The Power of Congress to Abrogate its Members' Rights under the Speech or Debate Clause

  The document is a memorandum discussing the power of Congress to abrogate its members' rights under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. The conclusion reached in the document is that Congress may not "waive" or abrogate its members' rights under the Speech or Debate Clause. The document presents questions for review regarding whether Congress has the power to abrogate its members' Speech or Debate Clause protection and the implications of such abrogation on the legislative process. It also discusses the potential arguments in support of Congress's power to "waive" its members' Speech or Debate privilege, including Congress's expertise in interpreting the clause and the preference for judicial trials over legislative proceedings.

  7/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  Proposed Justice Management Division Internal Audit of Parole Commission

  The document is a memorandum discussing the authority of the Justice Management Division (JMD) to conduct an internal audit of the Parole Commission. The conclusion reached is that the JMD does have the authority to conduct the internal audit, based on the legislative history of the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. The document presents questions regarding the division of powers between the Chairman of the Commission and the Attorney General, as well as the responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure efficiency and fiscal integrity within the Department. It also raises the issue of whether the Commission's fiscal and related operations should be immune from the Attorney General's scrutiny.

  7/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  Designation of Acting Heads for Action Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Small Business Association

  The document provides legal advice on the designation of acting heads for the Action Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Small Business Administration. It concludes that the President has the power to designate an acting agency head based on constitutional responsibility for the continued operation of the Executive branch. The document also presents questions regarding the appointment of acting heads in the event of vacancies and outlines the process for designating acting heads for each agency. It emphasizes the importance of early nominations for the positions and provides legal interpretations of relevant statutes and reorganization plans.

  10/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  The Effect of the Concurrent Resolution Provision of § 126(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, on the President's Power to Authorize the Export of Nuclear Material and Equipment

  This document is a memorandum discussing the President's power to authorize the export of nuclear material and equipment. It concludes that the concurrent resolution provision of § 126(b) of the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional as it attempts to give Congress the power to block the President's authority. The document presents questions about the constitutionality of the concurrent resolution provision and the President's authority to override the Commission's decision on nuclear exports. It also explores the separation of powers and the allocation of responsibilities between the branches of government. The conclusion reached is that the concurrent resolution provision is unconstitutional, but the President's authority to override the Commission remains intact.

  10/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  The President's Power to Set the Terms and Conditions of Nuclear Exports He Authorizes

  The document is a memorandum discussing the President's power to set the terms and conditions of nuclear exports, specifically in the case of an export to India. It presents three legal questions regarding the President's authority to modify the proposed export, delegate this power to the Secretary of State, and whether such modifications must be presented to Congress for review. Despite these arguments, the Office of the Counsel to the President advised that the President's claim of authority to set the terms and conditions of the export to India was defensible. The document also includes a memorandum for the Secretary of State authorizing them to perform certain functions on behalf of the President.

  10/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  Whether the President is empowered to make recess appointments of the directors of the corporation, even though the corporation is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government, 47 U.S.C. § 396(b), and its directors are not, by reason of

  The document is a memorandum discussing the President's authority to make recess appointments of the directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite the corporation not being an agency or establishment of the US government. The conclusion reached is that the President does have the authority to make recess appointments of the directors, based on the constitutional technique provided by Article II, § 2, cl. 2. The document also references a similar approach used in making recess appointments of the incorporators of the Communications Satellite Corporation, which was not questioned by the Attorney General or any member of Congress. The document presents the question of whether the President has the authority to make recess appointments of directors of a non-governmental corporation, and concludes that he does.

  10/27/2020

• 1/16/1981

  Authority for the Continuance of Government Functions During a Temporary Lapse in Appropriations

  Statutory authority for an agency to incur obligations in advance of appropriations heed not be express, but may be implied from the specific duties that: have been imposed upon, or of authorities that have been invested in, the agency. The "authorized by law" exception in the Antideficiency Act exempts from that Act's general prohibition not only those obligations for which there is statutory authority, but also those obligations necessarily incident to initiatives undertaken within the President's constitutional powers. A government agency may employ personal services in advance of appropriations only when there is a reasonable and articulable connection between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property, and when there is some reasonable likelihood that either or both would be compromised in some degree by delay in the performance of the function in question. 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/22536/download.

  1/16/1981