Showing 1181–1190 of 2202

• 7/1/1981

  Questions Concerning Lobbying by Federal Grantees

  7/27/2020

• 7/1/1981

  Authority of the Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Over Anonymous Allegations of Wrongdoing

  Anonymous complaints do not trigger the statutory scheme by which the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC), Merit Systems Protection Board, investigates allegations of wrongdoing within an agency; however, such complaints may be forwarded to the head of the affected agency by the OSC in its discretion, to be dealt with by the agency. 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/22701/download.

  7/1/1981

• 7/1/1981

  Constitutionality of the Proposed Revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations

  Proposed revision of the "technical data" provision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) redefines and narrows the class of transactions that are subject to a licensing requirement under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, in an attempt to avoid imposing a prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment; however, even as revised the ITAR can have a number of constitutionally impermissible applications. The licensing requirement in the ITAR may constitutionally be applied to transactions involving arrangements entered into by exporters to assist foreign enterprises in the acquisition or use of technology; it may also be applied to transactions involving the dissemination of technical data for the purpose of promoting the sale of technical data or items on the Munitions List, since the prior restraint doctrine has only limited applicability to "commercial speech." However, insofar as it could be applied to persons who have no connection with any foreign enterprise, who disseminate technical data in circumstances in which there is no more than a belief or a reasonable basis for believing that the data might be taken abroad by foreign nationals and used there in the manufacture of arms, the licensing requirement is presumptively unconstitutional as a prior restraint on speech protected by the First Amendment. It is not certain whether a court would find that the revised ITAR are so substantially overbroad as to be void and unenforceable in all their applications, or decide to save the regulations through a narrowing construction. The best legal solution is for the Department of State, not the courts, to narrow the ITAR so as to make it less likely that they will apply to protected speech in constitutionally impermissible circumstances. 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/22696/download.

  7/1/1981

• 6/26/1981

  INS Instructions to Field Offices on Chadha-Related Cases

  7/27/2020

• 6/26/1981

  OPM Authority to Regulate Reductions-in-Force in the Career Senior Executive Service

  10/27/2020

• 6/26/1981

  Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 205 to Union Organizing Activities of Department of Justice Employee

  The representational bar in 18 U.S.C. § 205 applies to union organizing activities of a federal employee in which he acts as "agent or attorney" for other federal employees before their agency. The definition of "agency" in 18 U.S.C. § 6 is an expansive one, which establishes a presumption that a governmental entity is an agency for purposes of a given criminal offense, including offenses involving a conflict of interest, and includes entities in the legislative branch. Even if certain provisions in Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) specifically protect a federal employee's organizational and representational activities under that Act, notwithstanding the general bar in § 205, those provisions do not apply in this case because the employee group seeking recognition is not a "labor organization" under the CSRA. 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/22686/download.

  6/26/1981

• 6/26/1981

  Disaster Assistance and the Supremacy Clause

  As an agency of the United States, acting pursuant to a valid delegation of the President's statutory authority to provide disaster assistance to states, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is not subject to state regulations or prohibitions which would impede the performance of its federal functions. However, the Supremacy Clause cannot be relied upon by FEMA to shield it from all state regulation of or objections to its disaster relief activities. 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/22691/download.

  6/26/1981

• 6/24/1981

  Civil Division's Recommendations concerning Reimbursement of Legal Expenses

  7/27/2020

• 6/23/1981

  Standards for Inmate Grievance Procedures

  7/27/2020

• 6/23/1981

  President Reagan's Ability to Receive Retirement Benefits From the State of California

  Payment to President Reagan of the state retirement benefits to which he is entitled is not intended to subject him to improper influence, nor would it have any such effect, and therefore his receipt of such benefits would not violate the Presidential Emoluments Clause. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1, cl. 7. Even if the Presidential Emoluments Clause were interpreted strictly on the basis of the dictionary definition of the term "emolument," it would not prohibit President Reagan's receipt of state retirement benefits since under state law those benefits are neither a gift nor a part of the retiree's compensation. The role of the Comptroller General in enforcing compliance with the Presidential Emoluments Clause is debatable, the penalty for a violation is unclear, and the Constitution might in any case make questionable the withholding of any part of the President's salary for an indebtedness to 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/22681/download.

  6/23/1981