Showing 1021–1030 of 2202

• 2/18/1983

  Applicability of the Antideficiency Act ApportionmentRequirements to the Nonadministrative Funds of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

  The plain language and legislative history of the apportionment requirements in the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1511—1519, make clear that Congress intended all funds, including nonadministrative funds, of government corporations such as the FSLIC to be subject to apportionment. The provision in 12 U.S.C. § 1725(c)(5) that the FSLIC shall determine its necessary expenditures "without regard to the provisions o f any other law governing the expenditures of public funds," does not specifically exempt FSLIC funds from the apportionment requirements of the Antideficiency Act. 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/23461/download.

  2/18/1983

• 2/18/1983

  Application of 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b) to Settlement of Suit Brought by the United States

  The requirement in 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b) that money received for the Government be deposited in the United States Treasury does not apply in a case in which the United States asserted no claim for money damages or penalties, and will receive no money from a health care program managed for private plaintiffs. 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/23466/download.

  2/18/1983

• 1/27/1983

  History of Refusals by Executive Branch Officials toProvide Information Demanded by Congress (PART II—Invocations of Executive Privilege by Executive Officials)

  The following two memoranda, prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel at the request of the Attorney General, describe instances since the founding of the Republic in which officials in the Executive Branch have refused to disclose information or produce documents requested by Congress. The first memorandum, dated December 14, 1982, sets forth examples of situations in which a President has personally directed that information be withheld, relying on the doctrine of executive privilege. The second memorandum, dated January 27, 1983, documents incidents where the Attorney General or some other executive official refused to provide information or documents to Congress in situations involving law enforcement, security, or personnel investigations. . . . 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/23251/download.

  1/27/1983

• 1/24/1983

  Authorization for Publication and Advice on Copyright Protection for a Manuscript Prepared by a Department of Justice Employee

  The key inquiry in determining the application of 28 C.F.R. § 45.73512, which governs publication of a manuscript by a Department of Justice employee, is whether the manuscript was prepared as a part or the employee's official duties, is devoted substantially to the responsibilities and operations of the Department, or is otherwise dependent on information obtained as a result of government employment. The manuscript at issue, which was prepared by an employee of the Bureau of Prisons, is sufficiently related to the employee's official duties as to prohibit remuneration for publication under 28 C.F.R. § 45.735-12(a). The Deputy Attorney General may authorize publication without remuneration under 28 C.F.R. § 45.735-12(c) if it is determined that publication is in the public interest. Although a decision on whether the manuscript in question may be copyrighted can only be made by the Register of Copyrights, it appears doubtful that the Register would grant copyright protection. The manuscript would probably be viewed as a "work of the United States Government," because the work was prepared by a government employee as part of his official duties. Such works may not be copyrighted under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 105. 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/23456/download.

  1/24/1983

• 1/19/1983

  Waiver of the Application of Conflict of Interest Laws for Members of the President's Commission on Strategic Forces

  Members of the President's commission on Strategic Forces are special government employees for purposes of the conflict of interest laws, based on a Department of Defense determination. Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), such employees may not participate without a waiver in any particular matter in which they or their employers have a financial interest. Waivers of the application of § 208(a) for members of the Commission may be granted by the Counsel to the President. This authority is based in part on 3 C.F.R. § 100.735-32, by which the President delegated to the Counsel his authority to grant waivers under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1) for "Presidential appointees to committees, boards, commissions, or similar groups established by the President." The statutory standard for the grant of waivers clearly anticipates the exercise of discretion by the appointing official. Factors suggested by § 208(b)(1) include the nature and magnitude of the employee's financial interest, the nature of the anticipated services to the government, and the likelihood that integrity of those services may be compromised. Other non-statutory factors might be considered with caution, such as the ability to reduce conflict by public disclosure of the employee's interest, the government's need for the employee's services, and the agency's general policy or practice in granting waivers. 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/23451/download.

  1/19/1983

• 1/12/1983

  Designation of Interpol as a Public International Organization Under the International Organizations Immunities Act

  The International Criminal Police Organization, INTERPOL, qualifies for designation by the President as a "public international organization" under the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. § 288 (IOIA), entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities under United States law. INTERPOL is composed exclusively of states as members and the United States participates in INTERPOL pursuant to statutory authority. Statutory protection is limited to international organizations that can demonstrate a particularized need for such protection. INTERPOL'S contacts with the United States are sufficient to demonstrate a need for protection, notwithstanding its lack of an office and permanent staff in the United States. Because INTERPOL does not have an office or staff in the United States, however, several of the specific privileges, exemptions and immunities available under the IOIA may be inapplicable. In an executive order designating INTERPOL as a public international organization, the President could limit the privileges, exemptions, and immunities accorded to INTERPOL to those necessary to carry out its essential functions in 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/23446/download.

  1/12/1983

• 12/30/1982

  Approval and Disapproval of Bills by the President After Sine Die Adjournment of the Congress

  The President may approve a bill after the sine die adjournment of Congress. If he wishes to disapprove legislation, the correct procedure is simply inaction, which results in a pocket veto. While a formal veto message is inappropriate, the President may express his disapproval through a memorandum of disapproval. 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/23266/download.

  12/30/1982

• 12/29/1982

  Proposed Changes in Operation of the Witness Protection Program

  The Attorney General has broad discretion in administering the Witness Protection Program established under Title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and his decisions in this connection are not subject to judicial review under the statute. Two proposed changes in the administration of the Program, dealing with the settlement of existing debts by persons entering the Program and with the custody of children brought into the Program, are generally within the Attorney General's authority. However, certain modifications should be made to protect fully the due process nghts of persons entitled to litigate or enforce custody and visitation rights against a participant in the Ptogram. Whether the proposed changes provide constitutionally adequate protection for either creditors unable to satisfy their claims because of the government's refusal to disclose the identity of persons in the Program, or for persons within the Program whose identity is disclosed to creditors, may depend on the facts of each case. The proposed changes would not subject the government to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because they come within an exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in that Act. Nor would they subject the government to liability for contract damages under the Tucker Act. 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/23261/download.

  12/29/1982

• 12/23/1982

  Continuing Obligations Under Congressional Subpoenas After the Adjournment of Congress

  While congressional committees' subpoenas are no longer effective after Congress' adjournment sine die, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should, in the interest of comity and accommodation to the Legislative Branch, continue to be as responsive as possible to those committees' requests for documents and other information. The Administrator's obligations under one of the subpoenas may be construed in light of the subcommittee chairman's subsequent modification on the record of its terms. Compliance with the subpoena as so modified cannot form the basis of the "willful default" that is necessary for prosecution under the relevant criminal contempt statutes, 2 U.S.C. §§ 192, 194. 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/23256/download.

  12/23/1982

• 12/14/1982

  Continuing Effect of a Congressional Subpoena Following the Adjournment of Congress

  A congressional subpoena lacks present force and effect after the adjournment sine die of a Congress, and it therefore imposes no continuing duty to comply with its directives; similarly, it will not support the continued exercise by Congress of the power to punish for contempt. Judicial construction of the procedure by which a congressional committee's contempt citation is certified for prosecution under 2 U.S.C. § 192 indicates that it would require action by the whole House and not simply the Speaker if the contempt occurs while Congress is in session. Accordingly, if the contempt in this case were not reported to the House while it was still in session, or if the House failed to act on the resolution, the citation would die upon Congress' adjournment and be of no further force and effect. If a successor committee in the subsequent Congress brought a civil action to enforce the prior committee's subpoena, its success might depend upon whether the court viewed the prior subpoena and refusal to comply as a historical fact whose validity could not now be adjudicated. This rationale would support an action for declaratory relief, but not one for injunctive relief. 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/23241/download.

  12/14/1982