Showing 1801–1810 of 2214

• 5/13/1974

  Department of Justice Historical Records Policy for Discretionary Release under the Freedom of Information Act of Investigatory Files More Than 15 Years Old.

  In this memo, the OLC confirmed that the FBI’s recission of the historical records policy, which allowed researchers to obtain access to materials of historical interest more than 15 years old, would be unwise in the light of public, judicial, and legislative opinion around openness of government (presumably referencing the post-Watergate public pressure that led to the sunshine reforms of the 1970s). The OLC developed proposed guidelines for the administration of the policy, which it recommended be transmitted to appropriate agencies for experimental use.

  4/28/2020

• 5/10/1974

  Appointment of a Foreign National to the National Voluntary Service Advisory Coun[ci]l

  This opinion reviews whether the appointment of an Iranian national to the National Voluntary Service Advisory Council is legal. It concludes that no statute bars the appointment, but advises the White House to consult the State Department to consider the diplomatic implications. 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 https://justice.gov/olc/page/file/935961/download.

  5/10/1974

• 4/30/1974

  Wiretap Authority for Non-Department of Justice Agencies

  The OLC in this memo concerned electronic surveillance conducted by agencies other than the Department of Justice both in the United States and abroad, both (a) surveillance pursuant to court order and (b) warrantless surveillance. At the time, domestic electronic surveillance pursuant to a court order could be initiated under the omnibus crime control act by an agency that had authority for the investigation of a listed offense, had to be authorized by the attorney general, and required specific showings (such as probable cause). At the time, applications were not made under this statute for surveillance outside the country. In contrast, the OLC opined that the authority for warrantless surveillance––if it existed at all––arose from the president’s constitutional powers. The opinion went on to detail existing court precedent on warrantless surveillance, the OLC’s own memoranda on this topic, and issues of delegability, disclosure, and centralization of recordkeeping for such activities.

  4/28/2020

• 4/26/1974

  Conditional Gifts to the President from Anonymous Donors

  This opinion memorializes advice made to White House counsel in light of anonymous contributions sent to President Nixon to “help him pay his personal income taxes,” which he wants to contribute instead to the Red Cross. The opinion advises President Nixon to avoid claiming the contribution as a tax deduction and to wait a reasonable time to allow donors to possibly abandon their anonymity and object to the transfer. 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 https://justice.gov/olc/page/file/935951/download.

  4/26/1974

• 4/24/1974

  Authority of Ohio Governor to Provide State Defense Attorneys for National Guardsmen Being Federally Prosecuted (Kent State).

  In this memo, the OLC advised that the Ohio governor did not exceed his constitutional authority as a state official by authorizing the state attorney general’s office to defend national guardsmen in a federal prosecution arising out of the Kent State shootings. This was because the national guard, although federally funded, were regarded primarily as state officers, and because the Supreme Court had ruled that families of students at Kent State could sue national guardsmen under the theory that they acted as agents of the state during the incident.

  4/28/2020

• 4/19/1974

  Appointment of Women to the Military Service Academies.

  In this memo, the OLC opined that there was substantial doubt concerning the president’s statutory power to appoint women to the military service academies and that it would not violate constitutional guarantees to deny women appointments to those academies. The OLC reached this conclusion by relying on the text and purpose of various acts of congress and consistent administrative interpretation. The opinion states that this policy would not violate the constitution because a rational distinction existed between men and women’s performance in combat duty and training for service academy appointments. The OLC also noted relevant then-pending litigation and legislation on this question.

  4/28/2020

• 4/17/1974

  5 U.S.C. 7102 [opinion re: First Amendment protections and UN personnel]

  In this memo, the OLC provided additional comments for a previous memo that aimed to acquaint UN personnel with U.S. constitutional law, New York State law, and local court procedures that might affect them. It noted that the previous memo failed to indicate the full extent of the protections afforded by the First Amendment to speech and assembly and misinterpreted New York penal law regarding inciting to riot.

  4/28/2020

• 4/16/1974

  (1) Travel and expense reimbursement for attendance at meetings of regular members on ABA Antitrust Council. (2) Travel and expense reimbursement for making speeches.

  The OLC advised that (1) a Department of Justice official’s participation as a member in ABA quarterly council meetings had no connection with their official duties and thus the travel and expenses generated could not be reimbursed by the department. However, the official would be authorized to accept such reimbursement from the ABA Council. The OLC also advised that (2) a Department of Justice official invited by a private group to give a speech regarding a subject that was related to their government work should not accept reimbursement for their own and their spouse’s travel expenses from the private group. In these circumstances where the official accepted the invitation as part of their official duties, their travel and per diem expenses should be paid by the government. The official could accept such expenses from private groups if they were invited to speak on a subject that was not clearly related to the government’s business.

  4/28/2020

• 4/15/1974

  Short staff memorandum on the question of wiretapping U.S. citizens abroad for governmental purposes

  In this memo, the OLC advised that American federal agents could not wiretap U.S. citizens abroad without court approval (where court order would be required to conduct the same wiretapping domestically), because the U.S. officials were still bound by the Constitution in their relations with U.S. citizens abroad. The OLC also admitted that the question of whether the U.S. could utilize the services of foreign police forces to conduct such surveillance on its own behalf was more complex, and the author suggested referring this question to the Department of Justice’s criminal division. This memo contains a cover sheet clarifying that it was written for the attorney general to rely on during press conference remarks and was not intended for press distribution.

  4/28/2020

• 4/5/1974

  Letter of January 25, 1974, regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act to the Government Printing Office.

  In this memo, the OLC responded to the general counsel of the Government Printing Office’s question regarding whether the Government Printing Office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act and stated that the Department of Justice would defend the printing office’s position that it was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because it was a component of the legislative branch. The opinion outlined the criteria that the Department of Justice applied when deciding to represent members of Congress or legislative branch employees and relayed the civil division’s application of those criteria to such a suit against the Government Printing Office.

  4/28/2020