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 1751–1760 of 2214

  • Exclusion of aliens in the military who have violated 10 U.S.C. 885, 886, or 887 from reentering the United States by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2).

    The document discusses the exclusion of aliens from reentering the United States if they have violated certain military laws. It also explores the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(22) to military deserters and draft dodgers. The document presents questions about the interpretation of the statute and whether mechanisms exist for alien deserters to enter the United States to gain a clemency discharge. It also raises the issue of inconsistency in the amnesty program and suggests that it may need to be addressed by statute.

    4/28/2020

  • Powers of the Presidential Clemency Board

    The document discusses the powers of the Presidential Clemency Board and addresses questions raised about access to files, subpoena power, and the need for releases from applicants. The conclusions reached are that the Board is not obligated to provide access to its files to law enforcement agencies, does not have the power to issue subpoenas, and may require releases for certain information transfers. The document also presents the question of whether the Board needs to obtain a release from each applicant and discusses the potential legal and policy restrictions on accessing certain types of files.

    4/28/2020

  • Emergency Proclamations of 1950 and 1971, upon which E.O. 11810 relies, were not prompted by the same conditions which call for the presently contemplated controls [opinion re: implementation of export controls on Soviet grain commodities]

    The document is a letter from Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, to the Secretary of the Treasury, discussing the imposition of mandatory export controls on grain commodities. Scalia believes that such controls can be lawfully imposed under Executive Order 11810, but also suggests issuing a new Emergency Proclamation to strengthen the legal position. The letter raises questions about the form and legality of specific proposals for the imposition and administration of the controls, as well as the potential implications of issuing a new Emergency Proclamation.

    4/28/2020

  • Extension of furlough for individuals who apply to the Presidential Clemency Board

    The document discusses the extension of furlough for individuals applying to the Presidential Clemency Board, with a focus on the limitations and legality of extending the furlough period. It concludes that while the statute does not directly prohibit the granting of a new furlough, it would be an abuse of the statutory purpose to grant refurloughs as a matter of course. The document also raises the question of whether compelling circumstances may be found on a categorical basis, rather than a case-by-case basis, and whether the extraordinary circumstances of the President's amnesty program constitute a sufficiently compelling basis for refurloughs.

    4/28/2020

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Witness Fees and Expenses

    The document is a response to a request for views on the Department's obligation to pay witness fees and expenses for cases litigated by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conclusion reached is that the Department is obligated to pay witness fees and expenses in such cases, as not doing so would create an exception that Congress did not intend to create. The document also presents a review of the statutes and legislative histories, as well as an analysis of the broad language in Section 1825, which applies to "all fees of witnesses" in "any case" wherein an agency of the United States is a party. The questions presented for review include the interpretation of "agency" in Section 1825, the inclusion of both fees and expenses within the meaning of "fees," and the Congressional intention regarding the payment of witness fees and expenses in EEOC litigation.

    4/28/2020

  • Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime

    The document discusses the legal interpretation of 5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(2) regarding employees' eligibility for premium pay based on Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime. The conclusions reached are: administratively uncontrollable overtime is not restricted to criminal investigators, it need not be limited to employees within the field, and it cannot be applied to all employees designated as "investigators" unless their positions satisfy the requirements of the statute. The questions presented for review include the nature of positions eligible for administratively uncontrollable overtime, the responsibility of employees to recognize the necessity for overtime, and the distinction between administratively controllable and uncontrollable overtime.

    4/28/2020

  • Mississippi Junior Colleges - enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    The document discusses the question of whether the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) may institute fund-termination proceedings limited to the State of Mississippi’s junior colleges under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conclusion reached is that Title VI and the implementing regulations of HEW permit the bringing of administrative proceedings limited to the "junior college component" of public higher education in Mississippi. The document presents a detailed factual background and legal discussion to support this conclusion, addressing the issue of "operational nexus" between junior and senior colleges in Mississippi. The questions presented for review include the legal basis for fund-termination proceedings, the separation of junior colleges from senior colleges, and the existence of an "infectious nexus" between the two systems.

    4/28/2020

  • Informal views on the applicability of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to impoundments which were effected prior to July 12, 1974, the date the Act was signed by the President.

    The document is a response to a request for informal views on the applicability of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to impoundments that were effected prior to July 12, 1974. The conclusion reached in the document is that the Act's requirements of submission by the President of special messages to Congress are applicable to pre-Act impoundments and to impoundment of pre-Act budget authority. The document presents questions for review, including the applicability of the Act to impoundments ordered prior to July 12, 1974, and budget authority enacted before that date, as well as the potential impact on the President's veto power and the language of the Act's provisions concerning submission of special messages to Congress.

    4/28/2020

  • Qualification of deserters under "amnesty" program for VA benefits.

    The document discusses the qualification of deserters under the "amnesty" program for VA benefits, specifically focusing on the definition of a "veteran" and the conditions under which they are entitled to benefits. It concludes that individuals accepting undesirable discharges in lieu of general court-martial for desertion would not be classified as veterans and therefore not entitled to any benefits. The document presents questions regarding the establishment of disqualification for benefits, including the feasibility of obtaining signed statements from those accepting the discharges and the potential ease of establishing the premise for application of discharge under the condition of desertion.

    4/28/2020

  • Papers and other historical materials retained by the White House Office during the administration of former President Richard M. Nixon and now in the possession of the United States or its officials.

    The document discusses the ownership of historical materials retained by the White House Office during former President Nixon's administration. The conclusion reached is that the materials are the property of the former President, based on historical precedents and legislative acknowledgment. The document also addresses the obligations of the Government with respect to subpoenas and court orders directed to the United States or its officials pertaining to the subject materials. The questions presented for review include the ownership of the materials and the Government's obligations regarding subpoenas and court orders.

    4/28/2020

Related Content