Showing 1361–1370 of 2202

• 2/28/1980

  Authority of Indian Tribal Court to Issue Garnishment Writs Under 42 U.S.C. § 662(e)

  An Indian tribal court is a "court of competent jurisdiction" for purposes of issuing garnishment writs under 42 U.S.C. § 662(e), if it has the power under tribal law to issue judgments awarding child support or alimony. 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/22511/download.

  2/28/1980

• 2/28/1980

  Effect of 18 U.S.C. § 600 on Proposal for Hiring Census Enumerators

  Proposal to give preference for hiring as census enumerators to persons recommended by Democratic Party leaders does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 600, which punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity. Even if § 600 were read to prohibit a promise of employment or benefits as a reward for past political activity, under the proposed program neither Democratic Party leaders nor any potential census enumerators are being made such a promise. 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/22516/download.

  2/28/1980

• 2/22/1980

  Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime of Agent/Examiners in the FBI Laboratory

  Under 5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(2), premium pay on an annual basis is authorized for "Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime" where duties of position are of such a nature that they cannot be performed during normal business hours. Whether work performed by agent-examiners in the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory is by its nature such as to qualify them for premium pay under § 5545(c)(2) is a question of fact. 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/22501/download.

  2/22/1980

• 2/22/1980

  Application of Conflict of Interest Rules to the Conduct of Government Litigation by Private Attorneys

  Whether the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility would bar private attorneys, retained as contractors to represent the interests of the United States in railroad litigation, from simultaneously representing other parties whose interests are adverse to those of the United States, depends on the facts of each situation. Ethical constraints on private attorneys retained to conduct railroad litigation on behalf of the United States do not end with the termination of the railroad litigation itself. The making of litigation judgments is a function at the core of the President's Article II duty to take ca re that the laws be faithfully executed, and must, therefore, be performed by those who serve under, and are responsible ultimately to, the President. The scope of ethical restraints on private attorneys retained by the United States depends upon extent of necessary interaction with and supervision by government officials; if close interaction and supervision can be anticipated, likelihood of ethical problems developing increases. Appendix identifies and discusses issues under the conflict of interest laws applicable to the temporary appointment of an attorney in private practice as a government attorney. 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/22506/download.

  2/22/1980

• 2/22/1980

  Constitutionality of State-Imposed Restrictions on Responses to Census Questions

  The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution bars a state from imposing restrictions on its residents' responses to questions contained in census form. Specific limited grant of power in the Constitution does not preclude Congress from enacting broader census legislation under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Statutory delegation to the Secretary of Commerce and Director of the Bureau of Census is not excessive, considering long history of census legislation and practice, and census forms are within that delegation. 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/22491/download.

  2/22/1980

• 2/22/1980

  Use of Polygraph Examinations in Investigating Disclosure of Information About Pending Criminal Investigations

  The Attorney General may order Justice Department employees to submit to polygraph tests to answer questions relating to pending criminal investigations, and may discharge an employee for refusing to take such a test. Even where an employee is entitled to be discharged only "for cause," failure to cooperate with an official investigation by taking a polygraph test may constitute adequate cause, as long as the employee is given reasonable assurances respecting the need for the test and the use to which its results may be put. 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/22496/download.

  2/22/1980

• 2/22/1980

  Civil Liberties

  This memo considered the proper level of consideration for civil liberties in the Justice Department’s work. It concluded that while concern for civil liberties should always be encouraged, sometimes the Department’s law enforcement duty made any kind of policy bias inappropriate.

  9/2/2022

• 2/19/1980

  Seizure of Foreign Ships on the High Seas Pursuant to Special Arrangements

  The United States has authority under international law to enter into agreements to stop, search, and detain foreign vessels on the high seas that are suspected of trafficking in illicit drugs. The United States may limit its jurisdiction over a foreign flag vessel seized on the high seas, and the vessel may be returned to the flag state at its request without compliance with domestic forfeiture law. Where the United States is authorized under international law to exercise its police powers to detain ships on behalf of their flag state, such detention does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. However, wh ere a ship is seized concurrently on behalf of the United States for violation of U.S. customs laws, a claimant is entitled to a prompt adjudication of his rights in the seized property. 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/22486/download.

  2/19/1980

• 2/12/1980

  Authority of National Telecommunications and Information Administration to Monitor Radio Communications

  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) may monitor radio communications to the extent reasonably necessary to discharge its functions under 47 U.S.C. § 305(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 272(12) & (13). Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1963 prohibits NTIA from aurally monitoring communications between a radio and a land-line telephone. 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/22481/download.

  2/12/1980

• 2/12/1980

  Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad Without Statutory Authorization

  The President's inherent, constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, his broad foreign policy powers, and his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed generally empower him to deploy the armed forces abroad without a declaration of war by Congress or other congressional authorization. A historical pattern of presidential initiative and congressional acquiescence in emergency situations calling for immediate action, including situations involving rescue and retaliation, confirm this inherent power, and the courts have generally declined to review its use. The War Powers Resolution generally precludes presidential reliance on statutory authority for military actions clearly involving hostilities, unless a statute expressly authorizes such actions, and regulates the President's use of his constitutional powers in this regard. In particular, it introduces consultation and reporting requirements in connection with any use of the armed forces, and requires the termination of such use within 60 days or whenever Congress so directs. The term "United States Armed Forces" in the War Powers Resolution does not include military personnel detailed to and under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency. [In an opinion issued on October 26, 1983, published as an appendix to this opinion, this conclusion is reconsidered and reversed.] The term "hostilities" in the War Powers Resolution does not include sporadic military or paramilitary attacks on our armed forces stationed abroad; furthermore, its applicability requires an active decision to place forces in a hostile situation rather than their simply acting in self-defense. The requirement of consultation in the War Powers Resolution is not on its face unconstitutional, though it may, if strictly construed, raise constitutional questions. The provision in the War Powers Resolution permitting Congress to require removal of our armed forces in particular cases by passage of a concurrent resolution not presented to the President is a prima facie violation of Article I, § 7 of the Constitution. 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/22351/download.

  2/12/1980