Showing 1351–1360 of 2202

• 3/25/1980

  Constitutionality of Replacing Federal Tort Claims Act Liability With an Administrative Claims System

  Congress may withdraw its waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act for presently pending claims of radiation fallout victims, whether or not any administrative claims system is created as a substitute. If it does not withdraw its waiver of sovereign immunity, Congress may substitute an administrative claims system for a judicial cause of action without offending due process, as long as the new remedy is fair and adequate when compared to the old one. 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/24411/download.

  3/25/1980

• 3/20/1980

  Applicability of Statutes Prohibiting Strikes Against the Federal Government to Cooperative Extension Agents

  Statutes prohibiting strikes by federal employees against the federal government do not apply where Cooperative Extension Agents participate in a strike against their university employer. 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/24401/download.

  3/20/1980

• 3/20/1980

  Constitutional Issues Raised by Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration

  Proposed legislation giving Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) power to amend rules which have been enacted by Congress would result in an improper delegation of legislative power to a private organization, and any amended rule could not constitutionally be applied to agreements entered into after the effective date of the amendments. Provision in proposed legislation allowing one House of Congress to disapprove amendments to IACAC rules, although not a veto of executive action, nonetheless violates the Presentment Clauses. An alternative review mechanism whereby the Secretary of State would be required to approve or disapprove amendments to the IACAC rules would be constitutionally acceptable, since the amendments would not be binding on the government but merely advisory. 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/24406/download.

  3/20/1980

• 3/17/1980

  Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 to Federal Employees Detailed to State and Local Governments

  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correct in its view that detailing its employees to important positions in state agencies, the duties of which may require them to represent the state before the EPA, is integral to the substantive environmental programs that EPA administers. Sections 203 and 205 of Title 18 were not intended to limit substantively the uses federal agencies may make of their employees, and a federal employee is performing "official duties," within the meaning of those provisions, when involved in a task that is integral to a substantive federal program. Sections 203 and 205 do not prohibit EPA employees, detailed to a state agency pursuant to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, from representing that agency before the EPA in the course of their assigned duties. 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/22531/download.

  3/17/1980

• 3/14/1980

  Effect of a Judicial Stay on Administrative Fund Termination Proceedings

  Under the nondiscrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1972, the administrative process by which funds are suspended or terminated is independent of any contemporaneous judicial proceeding, and a stay entered in the judicial proceeding thus has no effect on an administrative decision to suspend or terminate funds. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is free to defer administrative fund suspension or termination proceedings during the pendency of a judicial stay, but is foreclosed from restoring funds that have already been suspended or terminated except in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Under the nondiscrimination provisions of the Revenue Sharing Act, the Office of Revenue Sharing is required to suspend administrative enforcement proceedings, and to restore funds already suspended or terminated, whenever a stay is issued in the judicial proceeding that triggered the administrative enforcement action. 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/22526/download.

  3/14/1980

• 3/13/1980

  The President's Authority to Regulate Extensions of Credit Under the Credit Control Act

  Under the Credit Control Act, the President is authorized to regulate and control extensions of credit whenever he determines that such action is necessary for the purpose of preventing or controlling inflation generated by the extension of credit in an excessive volume. Proposed executive order announcing the President's determination, and proposed implementing regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System imposing controls on certain kinds of consumer credit, on money market funds, and on managed liabilities, are within the authority granted the President and the Board under the Credit Control 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/22266/download.

  3/13/1980

• 3/12/1980

  Vesting of Iranian Assets

  Because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize vesting of foreign property, and the Trading with the Enemy Act authorizes vesting only in wartime, in the absence of a declaration of war against Iran it would be necessary to seek new legislation in order for the United States to take title to the blocked Iranian assets. No domestic constitutional issue would be raised by legislation authorizing the vesting of Iranian government property; moreover, vesting for the benefit of either private claimants or the U.S. government would be consistent with principles of international law, either as a self-help method of securing payment for damages, or as a reprisal for Iran's continuing violations of international law. Vesting legislation would have little effect on pending domestic litigation involving the blocked Iranian assets, and its effect on pre-judgment attachments would depend upon the validity of such attachments under state law. Vesting legislation would not be enforceable against property located abroad, and would therefore have no effect on foreign litigation involving Iranian dollar deposits in U.S. branch banks abroad, unless foreign courts were to hold that such dollar deposits are in reality located at the home office of the banks 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/22356/download.

  3/12/1980

• 3/10/1980

  Exclusion of Homosexual Aliens Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (4)

  9/2/2022

• 3/5/1980

  History of Appointments to the Supreme Court

  The memorandum which follows, prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel at the request of the Attorney General, surveys four general aspects of the process of appointing Justices of the Supreme Court: (1) the qualities Presidents have sought in Supreme Court nominees; (2) the process of recruiting and evaluating potential appointees prior to nomination; (3) the manner in which the Senate fulfills its responsibilities in the appointment process; and (4) the relationship between the process of choosing a candidate and a successful candidate's eventual performance on the Court. The memorandum pays special attention to the roles played in the appointment process by the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. 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/22521/download.

  3/5/1980

• 3/5/1980

  Use of IEEPA for Measures Against the Soviets

  This memo considered whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provided authority for certain measures the administration wished to take against the Soviet Union. Among other considerations, the OLC concluded that the president likely could not block NBC’s payments to the Soviet Union for broadcasting rights or American citizens’ payments for travel to the Soviet Union under IEEPA. However, the OLC concluded that IEEP likely did provide authority for the president to block loans and credits to the Soviet Union, to forbid Americans from entering into industrial joint venture investments in the Soviet Union, and to prevent American grain dealers from making indirect sales to the Soviet Union through intermediaries.

  9/2/2022