Showing 1851–1860 of 2214

• 6/12/1972

  Implementation of Standstill Agreement Pending Approval of ABM Treaty and ICBM Interim Agreement

  The Standstill Agreement, made by the President with the Soviet Union pending congressional approval of the ABM Treaty and the ICBM Interim Agreement, would not violate section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, forbidding disarmament except by treaty or act of Congress. The President is not precluded by contract law or authorization and appropriations legislation passed by Congress from directing the appropriate Executive Branch agencies to abide by the provisions of the arms control agreements pending their coming into force. 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/20841/download.

  6/12/1972

• 4/10/1972

  Does the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1972 permit a "Rollback" of court‐ordered or agency‐induced busing or desegregation already in effect at the time of its enactment?

  This opinion concluded that the proposed Equal Educational Opportunities Act would likely permit educational agencies to reopen court desegregation orders, and once reopened, the orders would have comply with the substantive provisions of the Act prioritizing different forms of desegregation and curtailing the use of busing to achieve integration. The OLC recommended amending the bill to clarify whether existing desegregation orders should be reopened under the Act.

  5/16/2022

• 4/10/1972

  Executive privilege

  This opinion articulated the OLC’s argument in defense of executive privilege, which it traced to 1792. The opinion explained that the “underlying rationale” for the privilege was that “in the area of executive decision-making the President must be free to receive from his advisers their candid opinions without the fear that they will be second-guessed either by Congress, the press, or the public.”

  5/16/2022

• 4/10/1972

  Power of Congressional Committee to Compel Appearance or Testimony of Presidential Assistant

  The OLC provided several examples of presidential assistants that refused to testify before Congress on the basis that the president advised him not to appear. The opinion then concluded that, if Congress moved to hold the advisor in contempt, the advisor could ignore an indictment or warrant of arrest. However, the OLC went on to explain that in the alternative, an advisor could move to dismiss an indictment or seek a declaratory judgment stating that he need not appear before Congress.

  5/16/2022

• 3/15/1972

  Appearance of Presidential Assistant Peter M. Flanigan before a. Congressional Committee

  This opinion concludes that Peter M. Flanigan, Assistant to the President, can decline to appear before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, since the president's immediate staff share his immunity from Congressional process, unless the inquiry is related to their private conduct. The opinion also includes three historical examples when presidential assistants refused to appear before a Congressional committee. 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/1225966/download.

  3/15/1972

• 3/15/1972

  Appearance of Presidential Assistant Peter M. Flanigan before a Congressional Committee

  This document is a memorandum discussing the appearance of Presidential Assistant Peter M. Flanigan before a Congressional Committee. The conclusion reached in the document is that Mr. Flanigan may properly decline to appear before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in response to the Committee's invitation. The document presents a concise summary of the questions presented for review, which is whether members of the President's immediate staff may decline to appear before a congressional committee to testify with respect to the performance of their duties. It also provides historical examples of refusals of Presidential Assistants to appear before congressional committees.

  5/16/2022

• 3/15/1972

  Immunity of Presidential Assistants from being required to testify before Congressional Committees

  This memo, which accompanied a previously-published memo transmitted to the White House counsel on the same day, explained that presidential assistant Peter Flanigan would not appear before Congress if invited to testify. The OLC argued that refusals to testify on their official duties were “fundamental to our system of government.”

  5/16/2022

• 2/4/1972

  Criteria for Denial of White House Press Passes

  In this memo, the OLC responded to a request for its views regarding the legal implications of the denials of White House press passes to certain applicants because they were not cleared by the Secret Services for security reasons. The OLC concluded that if a court reached the merits of such a case, it would require some intermediate version of a hearing, not a full adversarial hearing, but “notice of the specific charges and an opportunity to respond.”

  5/16/2022

• 8/13/1971

  Micronesian Negotiations

  The opinion determines that Congress can relinquish powers over territorial status and give what was once a territory, such as Micronesia, a measure of self-government through a mutual agreement that will bind future Congresses. 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/file/796066/download.

  8/13/1971

• 6/28/1971

  Criminal Prosecution for Disclosure of Classified Information Relating to Defense Department Vietnam Study

  This memo, written shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the publication of the Pentagon Papers to continue, analyzed the Justice Department’s possible paths to “prosecuting government employees, private citizens, reporters, and newspaper entities” involved in the papers’ publication. It concluded that newspapers might be subject to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 793, and potentially 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, although ultimately the Justice Department only prosecuted Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo.

  5/16/2022