Showing 1591–1600 of 2214

• 12/28/1977

  Residency Requirements for Member of the Federal Reserve Board

  This document is a memorandum opinion for the Counsel to the President regarding the residency requirement for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The conclusion reached in the document is that Congress did not intend to impose a strict residency requirement upon the selection process, and therefore, it is not necessary for the nominee to satisfy any strict residency or domicile requirement in order to be selected from a specific district. The document presents questions for review regarding the interpretation of the statute, the legislative history, and the history of appointments to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, ultimately leaving the decision to Congress during the confirmation process.

  12/28/1977

• 12/22/1977

  Continuing Service of Deputy Director of OMB as Acting Director During Vacancy

  This document discusses the legality of Mr. A continuing to serve as Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The conclusion reached is that the 30-day limit on the tenure of persons serving in an acting capacity does not apply to OMB, and that the circumstances surrounding Mr. A's service as Acting Director seem reasonable. The document presents questions regarding the application of the Vacancy Act to OMB, the constitutional process of nomination and confirmation, and the reasonable time frame for the President to submit a nomination to the Senate. It also raises the question of the specific factors that determine the reasonableness of the tenure of an Acting Director.

  12/22/1977

• 12/21/1977

  Whether Former Assistant United States Attorney May Represent Potential Criminal Defendant

  This document addresses a conflict of interest issue involving a former Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. A, representing a potential defendant, Mr. X, in a criminal investigation of Mr. Z. The conclusion reached is that Mr. A is not prohibited from representing Mr. X in the current investigation, as it is separate from the earlier case in which Mr. A had some involvement. The document also raises questions about the potential violation of professional responsibility codes and the preservation of client confidences, as well as addressing concerns about public skepticism regarding Mr. A's knowledge of the new investigation.

  12/21/1977

• 12/16/1977

  Termination of Federal Financial Assistance Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964

  This document discusses the requirement in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that action terminating Federal financial assistance shall not take effect until a report is sent to the pertinent congressional committees and 30 days have elapsed after the filing of the report. The conclusion reached in the document is that the action that triggers the report requirement is a final administrative decision terminating assistance. The document also presents a concise summary of the questions presented for review, which include whether a report may be made at the start of an administrative proceeding or only at a later stage, and whether the nondiscrimination provision of the 1972 revenue sharing statute continues to apply to cases that arose before January 1, 1977.

  12/16/1977

• 12/14/1977

  FBI Investigative Jurisdiction Over Threats or Acts Against Federal Officers Not Covered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 114

  The document is a memorandum opinion for the Attorney General regarding the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI over threats or acts against Federal officers not covered by specific statutes. The conclusions reached in the document are that conspiring to impede or injure a Federal officer is encompassed by the FBI's investigative jurisdiction, and the term "officer" in the relevant statute includes both permanent and temporary, full- and part-time officers and employees of the United States. The questions presented for review include whether 18 U.S.C. § 372 can be considered as an independent source of the FBI's investigative jurisdiction, who is to be deemed to come within the statutory language "officer of the United States" in § 372, and whether authority exists to investigate individual acts not committed pursuant to a conspiracy of the sort made criminal by this provision.

  12/14/1977

• 12/14/1977

  Presidential Approval of Naval Petroleum Reserve Contract

  The document is a memorandum opinion regarding the Presidential approval of Naval Petroleum Reserve Contract NOd 4219-2664. The conclusion reached in the document is that the contract does not require Presidential approval as it does not fall within the categories enumerated by 10 U.S.C. § 7431(a). The questions presented for review include whether the contract required Presidential approval, the possible diminution of the rights of the United States with respect to ownership of the reserves, production, or sale of petroleum from the reserves, and the receipt of moneys due to the United States on account of the reserves.

  12/14/1977

• 12/14/1977

  Whether Official Opinions of the General Counsel for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Construing HEW Regulations Have Binding Effect in a Prosecution for Violation of Those Regulations

  The document discusses the effect of agency interpretation of regulations on the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records. It raises the question of whether official opinions construing the regulations have any binding precedential effect in a prosecution for violation of the regulations. The document concludes that administrative interpretation that certain conduct is prohibited by the regulation would not bind a court in a prosecution unless the interpretation were duly promulgated as part of the regulation. It also suggests that a treatment program official who released patient records in good faith reliance upon one of the interpretations could not be successfully prosecuted, and that it would be desirable to coordinate the issuance of these constructions with the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section of the Criminal Division.

  12/14/1977

• 12/7/1977

  Authority of General Services Administration to Restore Sanctioned Employees to Prior Grades

  The document discusses a disciplinary matter involving three employees of the General Services Administration (GSA) who were charged with theft and subsequently suspended and demoted. The conclusion reached in the document is that GSA has the authority to restore the employees to their prior grades based on possible legal bases, including the back-pay statute and Civil Service Commission's regulations. The document presents questions for review, including whether GSA has the authority to restore the employees to their prior grades and whether any remedial action should be taken. It is suggested that the matter be referred to GSA for further consideration.

  12/7/1977

• 12/7/1977

  Legal Basis to Withhold Documents Relating to the Export Administration Act From the House Committee on Government Operations

  The document is a memorandum opinion addressing the legal basis for the Department of Commerce's refusal to provide certain documents to a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations. The conclusion reached in the document is that, upon proper authorization by the President, the documents may be legally withheld from Congress. The questions presented for review include the legitimacy of claims of confidentiality for the documents, the need for protection of communications between high government officials and their advisers, and whether Congress' need for the information might be satisfied by means other than compliance with its initial request. The document also discusses the proposed arrangements by the Department of Commerce to provide detailed summaries of the documents and allow the subcommittee chairman to inspect the original documents under certain conditions.

  12/7/1977

• 12/2/1977

  Reorganization of Equal Employment Enforcement Authority

  The document discusses the question of whether a reorganization plan could grant concurrent authority to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice with respect to certain types of lawsuits. It concludes that there is no legal barrier to including such a provision in a reorganization plan. The document also presents a review of the pertinent provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Reorganization Act of 1977, and discusses the implications of granting concurrent jurisdiction to two agencies. The conclusion reached is that no provision of the Reorganization Act would forbid including in a plan a provision transferring to the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction over §707 suits against private employees and unions, and that the question whether to include such a provision is essentially a question of policy.

  12/2/1977