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).

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 18211830 of 2202

  • Reorganization language of section 707(c) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act Amendments of 1972

    In this brief memo, the OLC reaffirmed an earlier opinion that § 707(c) of the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act Amendments did not grant the president independent authority to effect a reorganization plan beyond the reorganization authority explicitly described in the statute. Because the authority lapsed on April 1, 1973, the president could no longer prevent the attorney general’s authority to bring “pattern or practice” employment discrimination suits from being transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The OLC supported its previous determination with an analysis of the plain meaning of the statute and of limited legislative history.

    4/28/2020

  • Power of the House of Representatives to demand criminal investigation files in connection with impeachment proceedings

    This memorandum summarizes past presidential statements disclaiming the use of executive privilege to shield information from the House of Representatives when it seeks that information in connection with potential impeachment proceedings.

    9/2/2022

  • United States Constitution ‐ Amendment 25

    9/2/2022

  • Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office

    9/2/2022

  • Presidential Immunity from Coercive Congressional Demands for Information

    This opinion concluded that both as a result of historical custom and constitutional structure, Congress lacked the power to subject the president to compulsory process. The opinion also rejected the idea that the president should be especially forthcoming with information relating to criminal offenses by government officials, and instead stated that “the need to guarantee the fair trial and other constitutional rights of alleged malefactors” had been cited as reasons for denying Congressional demands for information regarding criminal conduct.

    9/2/2022

  • National Security Electronic Surveillances

    In light of a recent Supreme Court case holding warrantless domestic electronic surveillance unconstitutional, this memo addressed the constitutionality of warrantless electronic surveillance in the name of national security and considered legal alternatives. The OLC concluded that there was sufficient support in lower court opinions for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases without a warrant, but explained that the scope of this power was limited to the foreign security powers held by the president, as articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3) and in the Supreme Court’s recent Keith decision.

    9/2/2022

  • Presidential Amenability to Judicial Subpoena

    This opinion, written before the Nixon impeachment trial, examines the Judiciary's power to subpoena the president. The opinion concludes that while it is clear that the court has basic subpoena power against the president in some contexts, the rule and manner in which the subpoena might proceed must depend on the president's "special status" and the circumstances of the case. 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/1085331/download.

    6/25/1973

  • Destruction of FBI files kept on Members of Congress and other public officials

    9/2/2022

  • Constitutionality of Legislation to Establish a Program to Prevent Aircraft Piracy

    Congress may establish jurisdiction in United States courts over individuals who commit the offense of hijacking outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. In most cases, state and local law enforcement officers would be authorized to make arrests for violations of the proposed aircraft piracy legislation, either because hijacking airplanes would also violate state law, or because federal law permits federal enforcement officers to delegate arrest authority to state and local law enforcement officers and state law permits state and local law enforcement officers to accept delegated arrest authority. 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/20851/download.

    3/23/1973

  • Rescission of Ratification of Constitutional Amendment by a State Prior to its Adoption

    In this memo, the OLC explored whether a state that ratified a constitutional amendment could later rescind its ratification. The OLC concluded that a state cannot rescind its ratification of an amendment after the amendment has been adopted through ratification by the legislature of “three fourths of the several states,” as required by Article Five of the constitution, but did not take a position on whether a state could rescind its ratification prior to that point.

    9/2/2022

Related Content