Showing 1031–1040 of 2202

• 12/14/1982

  History of Refusals by Executive Branch Officials to Provide Information Demanded by Congress

  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/23246/download.

  12/14/1982

• 12/7/1982

  Administrative Determination of Eligibility for Veterans' Beneficiary Travel Reimbursement

  The Veterans Administration (VA) has discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether VA beneficiaries should be reimbursed for transportation costs incurred in connection with their receipt of VA medical care, and is not required to do so in all cases. The permissive statutory term "may," used to describe the VA's administrative authority to reimburse transportation costs, should be interpreted in light of its plain meaning unless the legislative history reveals that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results, or consequences obviously at variance with the policy of the statute as a whole. The legislative history of the Veterans' Benefit Act of 1957 and its predecessor statutes is ambiguous with respect to Congress' intent in using the word "may" in the 1957 Act, and is thus not sufficiently compelling to contradict the plain language of the statute. Notwithstanding the VA's consistent interpretation of the relevant provisions since 1957 to mandate travel reimbursement, legislative ratification of this administrative interpretation in subsequent amendments to the statute will not be found in the absence of clear and unambiguous congressional acceptance of the VA's position. 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/23236/download.

  12/7/1982

• 12/2/1982

  Proposed Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park

  The proposed cooperative agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and the Archbishop of San Antonio, for the administration of church-owned properties within the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, does not on its face present such a risk of advancing religion or involving the government in an entangling relationship with the church, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that it may not be executed. Any federal funds to be expended under the agreement would not relieve the church of any obligation it would otherwise have, or confer any recognizable benefit on the church, and thus could not be said to "advance" religion within the meaning of the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612—13 (1971). Nor is the extent of the federal presence at the Missions contemplated by the proposed agreement likely to confer any imprimatur of government approval on a religious sect or practice, or commit the government to religious goals. 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/23231/download.

  12/2/1982

• 11/30/1982

  Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files

  It is the policy of the Executive Branch to decline to provide committees of Congress with access to or copies of law enforcement files, or materials in investigative files whose disclosure might adversely affect a pending enforcement action, overall enforcement policy, or the rights of individuals. Congressional assurance of confidentiality cannot overcome concern over the integrity of law enforcement files, not only because of concern over potential public distribution of the documents by Congress, but because of the importance of preventing direct congressional influence on investigations in progress. It is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive to determine whether and when materials in law enforcement files may be distributed publicly, and this responsibility cannot and will not be delegated to Congress. The principle of executive privilege will not be invoked to shield documents which contain evidence of cnminal or unethical conduct by agency officials, and the documents at issue here have been made available for inspection by congressional staff members to confirm their proper characterization in this regard. 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/22886/download.

  11/30/1982

• 11/19/1982

  Use of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 in an "Immigration Emergency"

  The Disaster Relief Act authorizes the provision of federal aid to state and local governments in the event of an emergency or major disaster, whether resulting from natural or man-made causes. Whether a particular "immigration emergency" so threatens property or human life as to fall within the scope of the Act is a matter for the President in his discretion to determine. 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/23226/download.

  11/19/1982

• 11/15/1982

  Legal Authorities Available to the President to Respond to a Severe Energy Supply Interruption or Other Substantial Reduction in Available Petroleum Products

  The following memorandum, prepared for the President for transmission to Congress in accordance with the direction in § 3 of the Energy Emergency Preparedness Act of 1982, describes in comprehensive fashion the authorities available to the President under existing statutes to respond to a severe energy supply shortage or interruption. It sets forth the legal basis for certain specific emergency preparedness activities, discusses the scope of each available emergency authority, and analyzes the differing threshold standards for activation of the President's authority under each of the statutes involved. 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/23221/download.

  11/15/1982

• 11/15/1982

  The Pocket Veto: Historical Practice and Judicial Precedent (II)

  The following two memoranda examine historical practice and judicial precedent under the Pocket Veto Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 2, in order to advise the President concerning the efficacy of a pocket veto during both intrasession and intersession adjournments of Congress. 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/22946/download.

  11/15/1982

• 11/5/1982

  Applicability of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act to the Community Development Block Grant Program

  The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (URA), which authorizes compensation for persons displaced by federally funded urban redevelopment, applies to the projects funded out of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The statutory language and legislative history of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 indicate that Congress intended the URA to apply to grants made under authority of that law, including grants under the CDBG program. Administrative practice and legislative consideration of the CDBG program since 1974 reflect that intention. The amendments made to the CDBG program by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 simplified the CDBG program and reduced the level of federal involvement; however, these amendments make no explicit reference to the URA and are not inconsistent with continued application of the URA. Therefore, they cannot be said to affect the continuing applicability of the URA to community development block grants. 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/23206/download.

  11/5/1982

• 11/5/1982

  Constitutionality of Statute Requiring Executive Agency to Report Directly to Congress

  Statute requiring the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to transmit concurrently to Congress any budget information and legislative recommendations that are transmitted to the Secretary of Transportation, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the President, would, if interpreted strictly, on its face violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Separation of powers requires that the President have ultimate control over subordinate officials who perform purely executive functions, which includes the right to supervise and review the work of such officials; this principle, coupled with the constitutional protection afforded the deliberative process within the Executive Branch, creates an area of executive prerogative that may not be invaded by a coordinate branch of government absent a very compelling and specific need. Disclosure to Congress of unreviewed recommendations by subordinates within the Executive Branch would disrupt the normal interchange between agency heads and the President in connection with the decisionmaking process, and interfere with the President's ability to supervise the actions of his subordinate officials while this process is going on, thus adversely affecting the President's ability to carry out his responsibilities. Because there appears to be no specific or compelling congressional need for the information at issue in this case, the concurrent reporting requirement can and should be construed so as to avoid constitutional infirmity, by allowing the FAA Administrator to provide Congress with budget data and legislative comments only after they have been approved by the Administrator's superiors in the Executive Branch, including, where appropriate, the President and OMB. 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/23216/download.

  11/5/1982

• 11/5/1982

  Procedures for Investigating Allegations Concerning Senior Administration Officials

  A proposal whereby personnel from one agency's Office of Inspector General would conduct an investigation of allegations of non-criminal misconduct by employees of another agency, or by the head of another agency, and report to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, is of questionable legality. The President has inherent authority to supervise and direct the performance of his appointees in office, and to investigate allegations of possible misconduct related to that performance. Under the Inspector General Act, an Inspector General and his staff are authorized to conduct investigations into allegations of misconduct only when those allegations involve fraud and abuse in the programs and operations of the particular agency in which the office is located. An agency head has authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against any officer or employee of his agency, including the agency's Inspector General. If under the circumstances he deems it prudent, an agency head may request that investigative personnel be detailed from another agency on a reimbursable basis to conduct such an investigation, though in such a case the investigative authority of any such detailed personnel could not exceed his own. 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/23211/download.

  11/5/1982