The OLC
Astrid Da Silva

The OLC's Opinions

Opinions published by the OLC, including those released in response to our FOIA lawsuit

This Reading Room is a comprehensive database of published opinions written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It contains the approximately 1,400 opinions published by the OLC in its online database and the opinions produced in Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the Knight Institute, including opinions about the Pentagon Papers, the Civil Rights Era, and the War Powers Act. It also contains indexes of unclassified OLC opinions written between 1945 and February 15, 1994 (these indexes were created by the OLC and intended to be comprehensive). We have compiled those indexes into a single list here and in .csv format here. This Reading Room also contains an index of all classified OLC opinions issued between 1974 and 2021, except those classified or codeword-classified at a level higher than Top Secret (the OLC created this index, too, and intended it to be comprehensive).

Some opinion descriptions were drafted by the OLC, some were prepared by Knight First Amendment Institute staff, and some were generated using AI tools.

The Knight Institute will continue updating the reading room with new records. To get alerts when the OLC publishes a new opinion in its database, follow @OLCforthepeople on Twitter.

Showing 1731–1740 of 2214

  • Payment of Mrs. Virginia H. Knauer's Travel Expense by a Private Organization

    The document discusses the propriety of allowing a private organization to pay for Mrs. Knauer's travel expenses to a Berlin function. The conclusion reached is that if Mrs. Knauer attends as the Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, she cannot receive reimbursement from the private organization, but if she attends as the Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs at HEW, reimbursement would not be objectionable. The document presents questions regarding Mrs. Knauer's capacity at the Berlin function, the regulations governing travel reimbursement for government employees, and the potential applicability of constitutional clauses regarding acceptance of gifts from foreign governments.

    4/28/2020

  • Applicability of 3 C.F.R. Part 100 to the President and Vice President.

    The document is a memorandum addressing the applicability of 3 C.F.R. Part 100 to the President and Vice President. The conclusion reached is that the regulations were not intended to bind the President or Vice President, as they are not considered "employees" under the regulations. The document presents questions regarding the definition of "agency" and "employee" as it relates to the President and Vice President, as well as the constitutional implications of applying the regulations to them. It also discusses the potential policy implications of the President or Vice President engaging in conduct proscribed by the regulations.

    4/28/2020

  • Application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the Sale of Sperm Whale Oil by the General Services Administration

    The document is a memorandum discussing the application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the sale of sperm whale oil by the General Services Administration (GSA). The conclusion reached in the document is that the sale and shipment of the sperm whale oil is in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and is not covered by any exemption of that Act. The document presents questions regarding the applicability of the Act to the sale of the whale oil, the exemptions provided by the Act, and the potential constitutional implications of the prohibition on the sale. It also raises the question of whether the Government's sale of surplus material should be exempt from the Act.

    4/28/2020

  • Opinion as to the legal propriety of a procedure by which the Clemency Board proposes to separately disclose the names of persons receiving clemency and the conditions of the grants of clemency.

    The document is a letter from Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, responding to a request for legal opinion from Laurence M. Baskir, General Counsel of the Presidential Clemency Board. The letter addresses the proposed procedure of disclosing the names of persons receiving clemency and the conditions of the grants of clemency while protecting their privacy. Scalia concludes that the proposed procedure would be exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The letter also discusses the legality of the proposed procedure and its similarity to other government activities that protect privacy. The questions presented for review include the legal propriety of the proposed procedure and whether there are analogous government activities that employ similar procedures to protect privacy.

    4/28/2020

  • Retroactive Effect of S. 782 [Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act] on Consent Decree Process

    The document discusses the possible retroactive impact of S. 782 (Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act) on the consent decree process. It outlines the changes that S. 782 will bring to the consent decree procedures, including the requirement for filing, publishing, and receiving comments on proposed consent judgments. The document concludes that S. 782 will be applicable to proposed consent judgments pending before a court but not yet entered at the time of enactment. It also presents questions regarding the retroactive application of the legislation and discusses relevant case law and statutory construction principles.

    4/28/2020

  • Constitutionality of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

    Without reaching definitive conclusions, this memorandum considers three constitutional questions raised by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. First, is it within Congress's constitutional powers to regulate advisory committees in general and presidential advisory committees in particular? Second, even if Congress can regulate advisory committees, may it regulate those committees giving advice to the President without violating the separation of powers? Third, even if Congress may regulate those committees giving advice to the President, may the President except certain committees from certain regulations because of executive privilege? 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/20921/download.

    12/1/1974

  • Application of Federal Reports Act to Letter of Inquiry Sent to Ten or More Persons From the Antitrust Division

    The document discusses the applicability of the Federal Reports Act to a letter of inquiry sent by the Antitrust Division to real estate boards. The conclusion reached is that the letter falls within the purview of the Act, specifically section 3509, which requires approval from the Office of Management and Budget when identical requests for information are made to ten or more persons. The questions presented for review include whether the Antitrust Division is considered a "Federal agency" under the Act, and whether the letter of inquiry constitutes a method calling for answers to identical questions. Additionally, the document explores the legislative history of the Act and the intent behind its provisions in relation to the letter of inquiry.

    4/28/2020

  • FOIA Appeal from Denial of Access to FBI COINTELPRO Files Regarding Professor Morris Starsky

    As a matter of administrative discretion, the Department of Justice should grant the FOIA request of an attorney for the FBI's COINTELPRO-New Left files regarding his client, a professor at Arizona State University and an active member of the Socialist Workers Party. FOIA Exemption (7) is technically applicable to the withheld documents. However, like all of the exemptions, Exemption (7) is only discretionary, and should not be asserted unless such action is in the public interest. Assertion of the exemption is not recommended for these documents. 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/20861/download.

    11/27/1974

  • Legality of the system outlined in section 3(c)(l)(ii) and (iii) of Presidential Proclamation 3279, as amended by Proclamations 4210 and 4227, providing for payments to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa derived from funds collected

    The document is a response to a letter requesting an opinion on the legality of the system outlined in Presidential Proclamation 3279, as amended by Proclamations 4210 and 4227, regarding payments to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa derived from funds collected as oil import license fees. The conclusion reached is that it is not within the President's authority to direct the payment of oil import license fees collected on oil imported from the respective islands to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The document presents questions about the legality and authority of the President to make such payments, as well as the interpretation of statutes and regulations related to the issue.

    4/28/2020

  • Approval by the State Department of LEAA Grants to the United Nations

    The document discusses the authority of the State Department to review LEAA grants to international organizations, specifically the United Nations Social Defense Research Institute. The conclusion reached is that the State Department does have the statutory authority to provide LEAA grants to international organizations, and that the requirement for State Department consent applies to financial aid to international organizations. The document also raises the question of whether the GAO must have access to the records of UN recipients of LEAA funds for audit purposes, and concludes that the "more fundamental issue" of the GAO audit requirements with respect to United Nations organizations is properly reached.

    4/28/2020

Related Content