Showing 1791–1800 of 2214

• 6/10/1974

  Whether the Register of Copyrights has the legal discretion to deny the registration of an application for the renewal of a copyright in which the applicant has asserted two different bases of renewal which the Register considers to be contradictory.

  The document addresses the question of whether the Register of Copyrights has the discretion to deny the registration of an application for the renewal of a copyright. The conclusion reached is that the Register does have the authority to refuse registration based on contradictory claims in the application. The document also presents the question of whether a single application can contain both "composite work" and "work made for hire" claims, and whether the Register can refuse registration based on both grounds. The document discusses the legislative history and administrative practice of the Copyright Office to support the conclusion that the Register may refuse registration in such cases.

  4/28/2020

• 6/7/1974

  Sale of Information Resulting from Department of Justice Employment

  The document is a memorandum responding to specific questions regarding the disclosure of nonpublic information obtained while working for the Department of Justice. The conclusions reached include the interpretation that the regulations prohibiting disclosure only apply to current employees, and that former employees are not bound by these regulations unless they unlawfully take department records or disclose classified information. The document also addresses the policy for granting permission to use nonpublic information and the application of the regulations to present, former, and future members of the staff of the Special Prosecutor. The questions presented for review include the applicability of the regulations to former employees, the policy for granting permission to use nonpublic information, and whether permission was needed to publish an article on Watergate.

  4/28/2020

• 6/6/1974

  Mandatory Urinalysis to Test Drug Dependency [follow-up opinion]

  Building on an earlier memorandum considering the permissibility under the Fourth Amendment of mandatory urinalysis on people arrested for federal offenses (to identify people on whom the state might impose drug treatment as a bail condition), the OLC concluded that a proposed scheme of a preliminary search for needle marks followed by a urinalysis only in those cases where there was evidence of substantial needle use would likely satisfy the Fourth Amendment. The OLC reasoned that the proposed search for needle marks was less of an intrusion on personal privacy than the original proposal requiring all arrestees to submit to urinalysis.

  4/28/2020

• 6/6/1974

  Proposed HEW regulation on sex discrimination

  The document is a memorandum discussing the applicability of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to school athletic activities. The conclusion reached is that Title IX is applicable to athletic activities, even if no federal funds go directly to such activities. The primary question presented for review is the meaning of "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" and whether it refers to specific programs within an institution or the institution as a whole, including athletics. Additionally, the document raises questions about the types of athletic activities subject to Title IX's prohibition against sex discrimination, specifically regarding competitive athletics at the high school and college levels.

  4/28/2020

• 6/6/1974

  Whether an individual who is a member of the National Commission for the Review of Federal and State Laws Relating to Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance is eligible to the appointed to the position of Judge of the United States Court of Military Appe

  In this memo, the OLC advised that a judge on the court of military appeals was not an officer in the executive branch as the judges on the court did not serve at the president’s pleasure, even though the military appeals courts were established under Article I (rather than Article III) of the Constitution. For that reason, the OLC concluded that an appointment to that bench did not vacate the judge’s membership on the national commission for the review of federal and state laws relating to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

  4/28/2020

• 6/4/1974

  Honoraria for Speeches, etc.

  In this memo, the OLC advised that an employee of the Department of Justice could not accept a fee from an outside source on account of public appearance, deposit it in her personal account, and thereafter donate it for charitable purposes according to a literal reading of the applicable regulation. The OLC gave this advice based on the assumption that the public appearance was part of the official duties of the employee. However, the OLC stated that the employee might suggest the outside source pay the fee to the charitable organization directly.

  4/28/2020

• 5/28/1974

  The Force and Effect of the Opinions of the Attorney General

  In this memo, the OLC considered whether opinions of the attorney general were binding on other executive branch agencies and, if so, what sanctions were available to the attorney general if their opinions were not followed. The office concluded that the attorney general’s opinions had only limited binding effect upon the conduct of the executive branch agencies, and that the attorney general could only use informal means to ensure compliance. The OLC also stated that the president, as the head of the executive branch, did not need to follow the legal advice of their attorney general, but such legal advice bound subordinate officers within the Department of Justice.

  4/28/2020

• 5/25/1974

  Requests of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives for certain information regarding the President's income tax returns for 1969 and subsequent years.

  The OLC issued this memorandum after the House Judiciary Committee sought information regarding President Nixon’s tax returns for 1969 and subsequent years. Specifically, the memo addressed whether the committee’s impeachment powers overrode statutory provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the disclosure of tax return information (26 U.S.C. § 6103) and concluded that they did not. The OLC agreed that all information requested fell within § 6103 and found that the judiciary committee did not have the authority to inspect tax returns under § 6103, notwithstanding the fact that it had been delegated the separate constitutional power of impeachment. This was because the judiciary committee was not a “select committee” “specifically authorized” to investigate the returns under the provision.

  4/28/2020

• 5/23/1974

  Application of Executive Order 11491 to Federal Attorneys.

  In this memo, OLC responded to several questions posed by the Federal Labor Relations Council concerning possible amendments to Executive Order 11491: specifically, whether attorneys should only be represented in separate attorney unions or whether they may be included in “mixed” unions (allowing attorney and non-attorney members). If these attorneys were allowed to join mixed unions, the memo considered whether attorneys should have a separate vote within the union or vote with all other professionals in their unit. Recognizing that attorneys’ employing relationships with agencies vary greatly, the OLC opined that the appropriateness of their inclusion in mixed unions should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that the executive order should be amended to provide that attorneys would be included in mixed unions only if a majority of the attorneys in the appropriate unit voted for the inclusion.

  4/28/2020

• 5/15/1974

  Mandatory Urinalysis to Test Drug Dependency

  In this memo, the OLC advised that the urinalysis testing of all arrestees for federal offenses––solely to determine dependency, so that drug treatment could be imposed as a condition of bail, and not for prosecutorial purposes––would not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. It noted, with some reservations, that a more narrowly confined program that would include some criteria to identify and test those most likely to be drug dependent could meet the requirements under the Fourth Amendment. It further concluded that, on certain facts, it could be permissible to require treatment as a bail condition.

  4/28/2020