Showing 1801–1810 of 2202

• 3/27/1974

  Use of United States Magistrates -- Policy and Constitutional Questions

  4/28/2020

• 3/21/1974

  Opinion regarding a matter arising under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945,12 U.S.C. 635 ("the Act").

  4/28/2020

• 3/19/1974

  Whether Public Law 91-563, Section §4(a) (5 U.S.C. §5751) authorized travel expenses for a United States Government employee summoned to testify before a state agency proceeding, and if so, whether the definition of "agency proceeding" in 28 C.F.R. §21.1(

  4/28/2020

• 3/15/1974

  Title 2, U.S. Code, Section 130(b) [opinion re: jury duty requirements for legislative staff]

  4/28/2020

• 3/12/1974

  Interpretation of the $12,000 salary limitation imposed on special attorneys by 28 U.S.C. § 515(b).

  In this memo, the OLC interpreted the $12,000 salary limitation imposed on special attorneys by 28 U.S.C. §515(b), determining whether the special attorney must be paid at a rate of $12,000 per year, or if the special attorney could be paid at a greater rate so long as the total compensation did not exceed the limitation. Examining the “extremely confusing” legislative history of §515(b) and related acts, the OLC concluded that the salary limitation required an annual rate, with a maximum daily compensation of 1/360th of $12,000. However, subsequent legislative history meant that special assistant salaries varied depending on which statute the Attorney General appointed an assistant under. The OLC recommended that §515(b) be amended to eliminate the precise dollar limitation and conform to the limitations present in other attorney salary statutes.

  4/28/2020

• 3/8/1974

  Further question raised by the Selective Service with respect to the release of Information discussed in Assistant Attorney General Dixon's letter to you of January 31,1974

  In response to a previous OLC memo concluding that the Director of the Selective Service could release information to the Office of Drug Abuse Prevention, the Director of the Selective Service expressed a belief that the Selective Service could not release subject information without approval from the Office of Management Budget (OMB). In this memo, the OLC explained that the director’s position involved a misreading of the Federal Reports Act. Instead, the OLC concluded that the Act mandates agencies to cooperate “to the fullest possible extent” in making their information available to other agencies, and that a provision authorizing the Director of OMB to require such cooperation only provided an additional backstop should an agency fail to comply.

  4/28/2020

• 3/7/1974

  Whether the provisions of section 12(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 362 (d)), as incorporated by section 10(b)6 of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 228j(b)6) into the latter Act, require that the Railroad Retirement Boa

  In this memo, the OLC responded to the Railroad Retirement Board’s inquiry into whether, pursuant to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and the Railroad Retirement Act, the board could maintain the confidentiality of its files in response to requests by the FBI for information on claimants. Examining both the legislative history of the Act and the Act itself, the OLC confirmed that Congress intended for the board to maintain a policy of confidentiality and nondisclosure, with exceptions for the limited instances in which disclosure benefitted the employee claimants or their beneficiaries.

  4/28/2020

• 2/26/1974

  Adequacy of Authority to Investigate Domestic Terrorism

  4/28/2020

• 2/26/1974

  Historical Data Involving Subpoenaing of and Testimony by the Presidents.

  In this memo, the OLC presented historical data ranging from 1800 to 1875 to supplement a previous 1973 memo Re: Presidential Amenability to Subpoena. The data illustrates the reticence of courts to compel presidents to make in-person court appearances to respond to subpoenas, especially where the subpoena would require the president to leave his seat of office. Some presidents like Monroe and Grant offered a compromise, responding to summons by agreeing to a deposition from Washington, which allowed courts to avoid the issue whether a president could be compelled to leave their seat to testify.

  4/28/2020

• 2/19/1974

  Amenability of the Vice President's speech writer to jury duty.

  In this memo, the OLC concluded that the vice president’s speech writer would be exempted from jury duty as a “public officer” in the executive branch per 28 U.S.C. §1863. The OLC determined that the vice president’s speech writer was a public officer because he was directly appointed by an elected official. The OLC briefly noted the unique circumstances of then-Vice President Ford’s ‘election’ to public office (Ford had been appointed to the vice presidency after Spiro Agnew resigned). Nevertheless, it concluded that the issue was moot because Ford was arguably ‘elected’ and because the vice president position is an elected office. In the alternative, the OLC reasoned that the speech writer might be excluded under several other exceptions, including that his relationship with the vice president might jeopardize jury neutrality.

  4/28/2020