Showing 1331–1340 of 2202

• 5/6/1980

  Civil Use of Privileged Information Collected for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

  This memo analyzed whether the government could attempt to use privileged communications between a foreign government and its representing attorneys, which had been collected for use in foreign policy, in a civil case. The OLC concluded that, if the communications were protected by statue or the Constitution as privileged, they would retain their privileged nature and a court would likely not permit their use in a civil proceeding. The opinion noted that a court could also enter a protective order limiting the further disclosure or use of the communications. However, the opinion also explained that Constitutional protections may not apply in the same way to a foreign government’s communications with its attorneys, and that common-law principles of privilege would likely not prohibit the use of the communications.

  9/2/2022

• 5/2/1980

  Part-Time Government Official's Receipt of Compensation for Representational Work Before the Government

  As a special government employee, part-time Commissioner of Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is barred by 18 U.S.C. § 203 from representing anyone before a component of the Justice Department for compensation. Part-time government official who is not a partner of his law firm may continue to receive compensation from his firm which is attributable to representational work before the Justice Department. Part-time government official's law firm may represent clients before any component of the Justice Department except the Commission. 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/24456/download.

  5/2/1980

• 5/1/1980

  Legality of an Executive Branch Boycott of States which have not Ratified the ERA

  9/2/2022

• 4/25/1980

  Applicability of the Antideficiency Act Upon a Lapse in an Agency's Appropriation

  If, after the expiration of an agency's appropriation, Congress has not enacted an appropriation for the immediately subsequent period, the agency may obligate no further funds except as necessary to bring about the orderly termination of its functions, and the obligation or expenditure of funds for any purpose not otherwise authorized by law would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act. The manifest purpose of the Antideficiency Act is to insure that Congress will determine for what purpose the government's money is to be spent and how much for each purpose. Because no statute generally permits federal agencies to incur obligations without appropriations for the pay of employees, agencies are not, in general, authorized to employ the services of their employees upon a lapse in appropriations. 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/22281/download.

  4/25/1980

• 4/23/1980

  Authority of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Board to Issue Guarantees

  The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Board has the authority, under § 4(a) of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1863(a), to issue loan guarantees even though Congress has not appropriated funds in advance to make payments under the guarantees in the event of a default. The Attorney General concurs in the Comptroller General's opinion (Comp. Op. File B-197380 (April 10, 1980)) that the Board has the authority until December 31, 1983, to issue loan guarantees in the amount up to $1.5 billion of contingent liability for loan principal outstanding at any one time and additional amounts for loan interest. 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/22276/download.

  4/23/1980

• 4/21/1980

  Litigation Responsibility of the Attorney General in Cases in the International Court of Justice

  Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519, the conduct and supervision of litigation in which the United States is a party is reserved to the Attorney General, except as otherwise authorized by law; under 5 U.S.C § 3106, other agencies shall not conduct litigation, but shall refer the matter to the Department of Justice. The Attorney General's authority and responsibility to conduct litigation extends to litigation in foreign and international tribunals, including litigation affecting foreign relations of the United States, and contentious litigated proceedings before the International Court of Justice are thus within his supervisory power. 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/22371/download.

  4/21/1980

• 4/18/1980

  Ethical Restraints of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility on Federal Criminal Investigations

  American Bar Association Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (DR 7-104), which prohibits an attorney from contacting an opposing party without prior consent from the party's attorney, does not apply to federal criminal investigations or to interrogations by FBI agents; accordingly, the Department of Justice is free to analyze the issues presented by DR 7-104 as policy questions. The only restraints on federal law enforcement activities are those established by the Constitution and existing statutes; moreover, authorized federal investigative practices are exempt from DR 7-104 by its own terms. Courts have taken the position generally that DR 7-104 applies to all situations in which a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, though they have been reluctant to fetter legitimate and traditional activities of law enforcement officials in the investigative stages of a case; moreover, courts have generally held that waiver of one's constitutional right to counsel does not negate the ethical obligation of a government attorney to seek the consent of an opposing party's attorney before initiating communications with the party. Federal courts have no power to exclude evidence, dismiss an indictment, or reverse a conviction solely on the ground that DR 7-104 was violated. State bar associations may not, consistent with the Supremacy Clause, impose sanctions on a government attorney who has acted pursuant to his federal law enforcement responsibilities. 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/24451/download.

  4/18/1980

• 4/16/1980

  Legality of Certain Nonmilitary Actions Against Iran

  Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President may impose an embargo on all imports from Iran and, subject to certain conditions, a prohibition on exports of food and medicine to Iran. The IEEPA also authorizes him to order the closure of Iranian business offices located in the United States. While the President may have some statutory and constitutional power to control third party transactions with Iran, particularly those designed to circumvent the impact of sanctions imposed by the United States directly on Iran, his authority to impose a general secondary boycott against those trading with Iran may be limited. It is thus not clear whether, under existing laws and treaties, airlines and shipping companies that serve Iran may be denied landing rights and fuel purchases in the United States. Presidential action to block international satellite communications from Iran to the United States is clearly authorized only insofar as it is part of a more general ban on transactions with Iran and its nationals. The President's authority to impose a ban on travel by American citizens to Iran may have a more limited applicability to journalists. See United Slates v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). Moreover, restrictions on travel to Iran would have no immediate effect on persons already in that country. However, the IEEPA could be used to impose a broad ban on financial transactions between Americans overseas and Iran or its nationals. The IEEPA would authorize a broad prohibition against all transactions between Americans relating to Iran, as long as Iran has even an indirect interest in the transaction; however, it is not possible under the IEEPA to reach "purely domestic" transactions. 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/22366/download.

  4/16/1980

• 4/15/1980

  Assertion of Jurisdiction by the United States Over Foreign Vessels Seized Pursuant to a Special Arrangement

  The United States may structure a Special Arrangement so as to enable it to assert jurisdiction over a vessel seized on behalf of a foreign state, once the foreign state waives its jurisdiction. Once the United States asserts jurisdiction over a seized vessel, it must comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 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/24446/download.

  4/15/1980

• 4/11/1980

  Supersession by the Ethics in Government Act of Other Financial Disclosure Requirements

  Section 207(c) of the Ethics in Government Act has superseded the public financial reporting requirements of four environmental laws adopted before its passage. 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/24436/download.

  4/11/1980