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).

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 1901–1910 of 2214

  • Whether section 3(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1969 is in harmony with section 5(a)(4) of the Reorganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 205, 5 U.S.C. § 905(a)(4)

    This memorandum discusses the legality of section 3(a) of Reorganization Plan No\. 1 of 1969, which transfers the authority to choose the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission from the Commission to the President\. The document examines whether this transfer violates the prohibition against authorizing an agency to exercise a function not expressly authorized by law\. The conclusion reached is that the transfer is valid, as it is consistent with the intention of Congress and is supported by previous reorganization plans affecting other agencies\. The document presents a review of the legislative history and language of the Reorganization Act, as well as the implications of the transfer of authority from the Commission to the President\.

    7/27/2020

  • Public advisory boards which report to the Department of Justice and interagency committees chaired by the Department which have been discontinued since January 20, 1969.

    The document is a response to a memorandum concerning public advisory boards and interagency committees that have been discontinued since January 20, 1969. It states that the Department of Justice is required to publish an annual list of advisory committees and that they receive routine reports from other agencies. The conclusion reached is that there are no advisory boards or interagency committees established or chaired by the Department of Justice that have been discontinued since January 20, 1969. The questions presented for review include the regulations for the formation and use of advisory committees, the request for records and files of advisory committees of other agencies, and the formal discontinuance of interagency committees.

    10/27/2020

  • Agriculture Department Funding of White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health.

    The document discusses the legal issues surrounding the funding of the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health by the Department of Agriculture. It raises questions about whether the conference can be considered an advisory committee of the Department of Agriculture and if its funding can be justified using department appropriations. The document explores the legal statutes and history related to the use of appropriated funds for committees, as well as the specific prohibitions in the Department of Agriculture's appropriation bill. It concludes that the legal problems raised by the inquiry have no clear-cut answers and suggests that seeking congressional authorization and appropriation for the conference or a legislative solution would be the best approach.

    10/27/2020

  • Jurisdictional Dispute over Investigative Authority of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau of Customs in Foreign Areas

    The document discusses a dispute over the investigative authority of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Bureau of Customs in foreign areas. The conclusions reached in the document are that the primary responsibility for investigations of violations of drug laws, both within and outside the United States, lies with the Attorney General, to be exercised by BNDD in cooperation with the Bureau of Customs. The document raises questions about whether the Bureau of Customs may conduct foreign investigative operations free of the control of BNDD and whether foreign investigative operations should be under the control of a single agency. It also questions whether the Bureau of Customs should be authorized to make direct contacts with foreign law enforcement agencies.

    10/27/2020

  • Possible conflict of interest, Green River Dam and Reservoir Project, Western District of Kentucky

    The document is a response to a memorandum inquiring about a possible conflict of interest and breach of legal ethics in a specific matter. The conclusions reached in the document are: (1) there was no violation of federal conflicts of interest laws, (2) if there is evidence of a breach of legal ethics, it may be referred to the Kentucky State Bar Association, and (3) the Corps of Engineers may need to revise its contracts to prevent attorneys who provide services from representing parties in litigation against the United States. The document presents questions about whether there was a violation of conflict of interest laws, whether there was a breach of legal ethics, and the advisability of calling attention to the Corps of Engineers to prevent "switching of sides" by attorneys providing services.

    7/27/2020

  • International Labor Organization Convention No. 128 and Recommendation No. 131, concerning Invalidity, Old Age and Survivor's Benefits

    The document is a response to a letter from the Secretary of Labor regarding the International Labor Organization Convention No. 128 and Recommendation No. 131. The Department of Justice advised that it had no objection to the draft letter presenting the Executive Branch's position on the Convention and Recommendation, recommending that the President transmit the Convention to the Senate with a request for its advice and consent to ratification. The Department of Justice did not take a position on whether the Convention would be approved by the Senate, and it deferred to the views of the departments most directly concerned regarding the policy issues involved in ratification. The document raises questions about the likelihood of Senate approval being a controlling factor in determining whether a recommendation should be made to the President to request Senate advice and consent to ratification, as well as the consistency of the Convention with Federal law and the policy issues involved in ratification.

    7/27/2020

  • An analysis of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 209 [contained in a letter of January 12, 1968, from Assistant Attorney General Frank M. Wozencraft to Sheldon S. Cohen, then Commissioner of Internal Revenue]

    The document is a letter from Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist to Mr. Robert S. Smith, discussing the analysis of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 209 in relation to the Personnel Interchange Program. Rehnquist concurs with the views expressed in his predecessor's letter to Commissioner Cohen, but notes that the principles are of general applicability and not a formal binding opinion for any specific case. The letter raises questions about the application of the cited provisions to industry personnel in the Personnel Interchange Program and emphasizes the need for specific facts to be brought to their attention for appropriate assistance.

    7/27/2020

  • Request for consideration of a suggestion that the President issue a proclamation celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first woman to be admitted to practice law in the United States

    The document is a response to a request for consideration of a suggestion to issue a proclamation celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first woman to be admitted to practice law in the United States. It discusses the process of issuing proclamations and the President's powers to issue them without a Congressional request. The conclusion reached is that the decision to issue a proclamation for this event is a question of policy, and the Assistant Attorney General has no objection to it if it is deemed desirable. The document also includes a letter from Mrs. Abernathy enclosing her suggestion.

    10/27/2020

  • Conflict-of-Interest Statute; Discussion with Chairman Budge of SEC.

    This opinion examines the meaning of "particular matter" in 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), the conflict-of-interest statute. The opinion memoralizes advice given to the Securities and Exchange Commission, disagreeing with the SEC's initial view that the term did not extend to rule-making or other activities of more general scope. However, the opinion refrains from conclusively defining the scope of “particular interest." 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/1009431/download.

    7/28/1969

  • Damage suits against United States Attorneys

    The document provides a response to a request for views on the questions raised by a United States Attorney regarding the possibility of damage suits being brought against United States Attorneys for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The document concludes that United States Attorneys, like federal judges, are absolutely immune from damage suits for actions performed in their official capacities. It also states that the likelihood of a United States Attorney being held liable for actions taken under color of his authority seems quite remote. The questions presented for review include the possibility of the Department securing liability insurance to pay any damages that might be awarded against United States Attorneys for wrongful acts, and the applicability of the immunity doctrine to defendant officials in specific cases.

    7/27/2020

Related Content