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 1741–1750 of 2214
-
Effect of the "antilobbying" provisions of Federal law upon activities of the Executive branch.
The document contains three Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda discussing the impact of "antilobbying" provisions of federal law on the activities of the Executive branch. The conclusion reached is that a restrictive reading of 18 U.S.C. 1913 should be applied, prohibiting only attempts by the Executive branch to influence Congress through the public, but not direct contact between authorized members of the Executive branch and Congress itself. The document presents questions for review regarding the interpretation of the antilobbying provisions and the potential conflict with individual congressmen who have asserted a contrary principle. It also addresses the concern of avoiding a conflict by handling legislative contacts at relatively high levels to prevent hundreds of bureaucrats from running about the halls of Congress.
4/28/2020
-
Protection of property of Palestine Liberation Organization and League of Arab States.
The document confirms the opinion that under certain conditions, the President may direct the Department of the Treasury to provide protection for the property of the Palestine Liberation Organization. It outlines the powers and duties of the Executive Protective Service and the United States Secret Service in providing protection for the PLO's property and personnel. The document raises questions about the legal and logistical implications of providing protection for a foreign organization's property on U.S. soil, and the potential impact on diplomatic relations with other countries.
4/28/2020
-
Reviewed the duplicate of [White House Counsel Buchen]'s confidential statement of employment and financial interests in the light of job description form and the attachment thereto.
The document is a memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Antonin Scalia to Philip W. Duchesne, regarding the review of his confidential statement of employment and financial interests. The conclusion reached is that the documents satisfy the requirements for reporting employment and financial interests for employees in the Executive Office of the President. It is also noted that there is no conflict of interest between Duchesne's financial interests and the performance of his official duties, except for specific financial interests that are subject to the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 208. The document presents questions regarding the potential conflict of interest and the specific financial interests of Duchesne for review.
4/28/2020
-
SBA loans to mushroom growers and processors.
The document is a memorandum discussing the legality of the President advising the Small Business Administration (SBA) on granting loans to mushroom growers and processors to assist in their recovery from botulism toxicity. The conclusion reached is that it is lawful for the President to advise the SBA on this matter, and the legal authority for the loans is found in 15 U.S.C. 636(b)(4). The document presents questions about the interpretation of "natural or undetermined causes" as the basis for the loans, and whether the same justification applies to the current situation as it did to previous loans granted to the fish industry. It also raises concerns about negligence and the need for administrative findings to support the proposed loans.
4/28/2020
-
Mississippi Junior Colleges - deferral of Federal funds
The document discusses the issue of deferral of federal funds to Mississippi public junior colleges and state universities in the event of an administrative proceeding to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conclusion reached is that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) would have discretion to limit the deferral of funds to the discriminating component of the higher education system. It is also concluded that deferral of grants to the universities would be improper if they are in compliance with Title VI. The document presents questions regarding the discretion of HEW to limit deferral of funds, the compliance of universities with Title VI, and the requirements for termination of assistance to the universities.
4/28/2020
-
Standards of Conduct--LEAA Employees' Teaching at American University
The document addresses the question of whether there would be a conflict of interest if three LEAA employees were to teach at American University, which has received grants and funds from LEAA. The conclusion reached is that there would be no violation of the Department's Standards of Conduct, as the teaching assignments would not involve official duties, draw on official data, or create an appearance of conflict of interest. The document also presents a concise summary of the questions surrounding the potential conflict of interest and the standards of conduct that would apply to the situation.
4/28/2020
-
Authority of the FBI to enter into indemnity agreements
The document discusses the authority of the FBI to enter into indemnity agreements and concludes that, in general, the FBI does not have the authority to do so without a specific statute authorizing it. The document also highlights the restrictions imposed by the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits the government from entering into contracts that exceed the limits of the statute. It presents questions regarding the authority of the FBI to enter into indemnity agreements and the limitations imposed by the Anti-Deficiency Act, as well as the potential for indemnity agreements to be authorized in certain limited circumstances.
4/28/2020
-
Application of the conflict-of-interest law, 18 U.S.C. § 208, to a White House employee who is one of the beneficiaries, and one of the trustees, of a testamentary trust with a total value of approximately $250,000, most of which consists of real estate a
The document is a memorandum to the Honorable Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to the President, regarding the conflict-of-interest law and the application of a "blind trust" device for a White House employee who is a beneficiary and trustee of a testamentary trust. The conclusion reached in the document is that reliance on the exemption provision contained in 18 U.S.C. § 208(b) is recommended, with a waiver required from the official responsible for the employee's appointment. The document presents questions for review, such as the possibility of adopting a regulation categorically excepting certain financial interests and the use of a general waiver applicable to all activities of an employee. It also discusses the practical political considerations that may impact these approaches.
4/28/2020
-
Written expression of the views I have previously conveyed concerning the applicability of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to budget authority enacted, and impoundments effected, prior to July 12,1974, the date the Act was signed by the President.
The document is a legal opinion on the application of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to impoundments made before and after its effective date. The conclusion reached is that impoundments made after July 12, 1974, are subject to the terms of the new legislation, including the provision for transmittal of special messages to Congress. However, impoundments made before the effective date are not covered by the Act. The document also presents a detailed analysis of the language and provisions of the Act, addressing the issue of how the terms apply to previously enacted budget authority and the applicability of the Act to impoundments made before its effective date. The questions presented for review include the effective date of the Act's provisions, the distinction between pre-Act and post-Act budget authority, and the interpretation of language in the legislation.
4/28/2020
-
Pocket Veto
The document discusses the issue of whether the President can use the pocket veto on bills presented to him during the upcoming recess of Congress. It highlights the uncertainty caused by a court decision in Kennedy v. Sampson, which held that the President could not pocket veto a bill during a recess if Congress made arrangements for receiving messages. The document presents legal arguments against the decision and recommends conducting another pocket veto and court test to clarify the validity of the pocket veto. The conclusion reached is that the decision in Kennedy v. Sampson creates uncertainty, and further action is needed to establish the availability of the pocket veto. The document raises questions about the implications of the court decision, the need for a test case, and the potential impact on the validity of the pocket veto in the future.
4/28/2020