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 1881–1890 of 2214
-
Proposed Letter From Secretary of the Army Resor to Chairman Rivers re Submission of Open CID Investigative Files
This opinion determines that the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense have proper reasons to refuse to supply certain investigative files to the congressional inquiry into the My Lai incident. 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/sites/default/files/olc/pages/attachments/2014/12/30/1969-12-19_-_daag_kauper_-_open_cid_investig_files_ocr.pdf.
12/19/1969
-
The Power of the President to Remove United States Attorneys
The document discusses the power of the President to remove United States attorneys, citing the relevant laws and court cases. It concludes that the President has unlimited power to remove such officers, as stated in 28 U.S.C. 541, and this power has been consistently recognized since 1831. The document also raises questions about the process of removing an incumbent officer and the effect of appointing a successor, as well as the removal process in the case of a recess appointment.
10/27/2020
-
Disclosure of Federal tax returns to State and local law enforcement officials in connection with the work of the New York Joint Strike Force
The document discusses the recommendation for making federal tax returns available to state and local law enforcement officials for organized crime cases. The conclusion reached in the document is that this should be accomplished by issuance of an Executive order permitting such disclosure and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury approved by the President. The document presents questions regarding the authority of the President under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, the specific chapters of the Code that may be open to inspection, and the potential need for an amendment to the Department regulations pertaining to disclosure of the Department's records.
7/27/2020
-
Whether there is any legal impediment to the President delegating to the Secretary of State the authority to sign warrants of extradition agents
The document is a response to a letter regarding the delegation of authority to the Secretary of State to sign warrants of extradition agents on behalf of the President. The conclusion reached is that there is no legal impediment to the President delegating the authority to the Secretary, either to physically sign the warrants or to issue and sign them. The document also presents the question of whether the President would continue to exercise any decision-making function relating to the issuance of the warrants, and if the form of the warrant would need to be revised to show that it is issued by the Secretary rather than the President.
10/27/2020
-
Constitutionality of the "no-knock" provisions in the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969
The document discusses the constitutionality of the "no-knock" provisions in the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969. It concludes that such provisions are constitutional, based on the decision in Ker v. California, which upheld unannounced entry and seizure of narcotics without a warrant. The document also presents objections to the subjective judgment of police officers and references related cases such as La Peluso v. California and Chimel v. California. The questions presented for review include whether the "no-knock" provisions are constitutional and whether they are permissible under the Fourth Amendment for the prevention of the destruction of evidence.
7/27/2020
-
The proposed appointment of a member of Congress to be an Assistant to the President
The document consists of two separate communications. The first part discusses the negotiations of a treaty and emphasizes that there were no secret agreements or understandings beyond what is stated in the treaty and exchange of notes. The conclusion reached is that the Senate gave its advice and consent to the treaty with the explicit understanding that there are no secret agreements modifying the treaty. The second part addresses the constitutional provision prohibiting members of Congress from being appointed to civil office. The document presents a detailed analysis of whether appointing a member of Congress as an Assistant to the President would violate this provision, concluding that it may not violate the provision if the position is not considered a "civil office" within the meaning of the constitutional language. The document also presents a strong case for the proposition that the position may not be considered a "civil office." The questions presented for review include whether the position of Assistant to the President is considered a "civil office" and whether the appointee would occupy a position authorized under specific sections of the law.
10/27/2020
-
The President's Executive Privilege to Withhold Foreign Policy and National Security Information
The document discusses the constitutional privilege of the Executive to withhold information from Congress on the basis of national security or foreign policy considerations. It outlines the historical context of this privilege and provides examples of past disputes between the Executive and Congress. The conclusion reached in the document is that the President has the power to withhold information from the Senate in the field of foreign relations or national security if disclosure would be incompatible with the public interest. The document presents a concise summary of the questions presented for review, including instances in which Presidents withheld military and diplomatic information from the Senate on the ground that its disclosure would not be compatible with the public interest.
10/27/2020
-
Presidential Authority to Impound Funds Appropriated for Assistance to Federally Impacted Schools
Public Law 81-874 does not provide statutory authority for the Commissioner of Education in the exercise of his discretion to avoid applying the full sum appropriated to the entitlements of local educational agencies for financial assistance to federally impacted schools. The President does not have the constitutional authority to direct the Commissioner of Education or the Bureau of the Budget to impound or otherwise prevent the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress to carry out the legislation for financial assistance to federally impacted schools, Public Law 81-874. 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/20816/download.
12/1/1969
-
Certain stories published in the newspaper, "The Government Employees Exchange"
The document is a memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, in response to a request to review and reply to a memorandum concerning false statements published in a newspaper about a government official. The conclusion reached is that it is doubtful that any violation of law was involved, and it is unlikely that the statements would give rise to a civil action for damages against the newspaper. The questions presented for review include whether the publication of false statements involved any violation of law and whether any legal action was indicated.
10/27/2020
-
Whether a "Technical" Conflict of Interest Violation Requires Cancellation of a Government Contract
The document discusses the question of whether a "technical conflict of interest violation" requires the cancellation of a government contract. The conclusion reached is that cancellation of a government contract is not required for a technical violation. The document also presents the question of whether cancellation is mandatory or optional, with the conclusion being that it is optional. The document references previous court cases and statutes to support the conclusion that cancellation is not mandatory, and it provides historical context for the discretionary nature of contract cancellation in cases of conflict of interest violations.
7/27/2020