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 2041–2050 of 2214
-
Pay scale of members of the United States Board of Parole
The document discusses the lack of significant changes in the duties, functions, and workload of the Board, which would warrant presidential relief. It also highlights the potential issues that could arise if action is taken to upgrade the position of Board members, including creating an inequitable pay situation. The document concludes by recommending that any proposal for a statutory change in the Board's pay rate should be submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for advice on its relationship to the President's program. The questions presented for review include whether there have been any significant changes in the Board's duties or workload, and what potential issues could arise from upgrading the position of Board members.
10/27/2020
-
Establishment of a new "Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents" as a special edition of the Federal Register
The document discusses the establishment of a new weekly compilation of Presidential documents, which will be distributed through the Federal Register apparatus. The conclusion reached is that the new service can and should be established, with the first issue scheduled for publication on July 17, 1965. The document also presents questions regarding the submission and distribution of documents, as well as potential criticisms of the new service, particularly in relation to political speeches published before an election. The Assistant Attorney General recommends the approval of the regulations for the new service.
10/27/2020
-
The arrangement John N. Irwin II has made with his law firm, Patterson, Belknap & Webb, to continue in private law practice to the extent permitted by his duties as Special Representative of the United States for Interoceanic Canal Negotiations.
The document is a response to a letter regarding John N. Irvin II's arrangement with his law firm while serving as Special Representative of the United States for Inter-oceanic Canal Negotiations. The conclusion reached is that Mr. Irvin's legal work and his government service do not violate conflict of interest statutes. However, there is a word of caution regarding the appearance of the firm for a client in a matter in which Mr. Irwin has participated personally and substantially as a government employee. The document presents questions about the potential conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in Mr. Irvin's continuing relationship with his law firm.
10/27/2020
-
Agreement on Civil Emergency Planning Between the United States and Canada effected by the exchange of notes
The document is a response to a request for an opinion on a proposed agreement between the United States and Canada regarding civil emergency planning. The agreement aims to broaden the scope of existing emergency planning activities to coordinate and provide maximum protection in the event of an enemy attack. The Office supports the objectives of the new agreement and is generally in agreement with the means by which those objectives would be accomplished. However, there are concerns about the legality of specific methods of implementing the agreement under the laws of the United States, which will need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The document presents questions about the compatibility of the agreement with the legal systems of both nations and the potential legal issues that may arise in implementing the agreement.
10/27/2020
-
Constitutionality of attempt by Congress to prohibit an officer in the Executive branch from continuing to hold one of two offices to which he was appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The document discusses the constitutionality of a legislative attempt to prohibit a person from holding the positions of Director of the Peace Corps and Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity simultaneously. The conclusion reached is that such legislation would be invalid because it would constitute an attempt by Congress to remove an officer of the Executive branch in a manner not authorized by the Constitution. The document presents questions about the power of Congress to impose qualifications for executive positions, the exclusive power of the President to remove executive officers, and the limitations on Congress in removing officers without impeachment. It also raises the issue of whether Congress can retroactively impose qualifications to remove an incumbent from office.
10/27/2020
-
Transferability of Federal Judges to the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.
The document discusses the legality of temporarily assigning judges of certain federal courts to the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. It raises constitutional questions regarding the doctrine of Separation of Powers and the relationship between Article III and Article I courts. The document also reviews the status of different courts and the constitutional and statutory authority for judge assignments. The conclusion reached is that the assignment proposals may raise constitutional questions and that there is no statutory authority for the proposed assignments. The document presents questions about the constitutionality of assigning judges between legislative and constitutional courts, as well as the legal authority for such assignments.
10/27/2020
-
Provisions requiring state agencies administering federal grant‐in‐aid programs to have merit personnel programs.
The document discusses the legislative history of provisions requiring state agencies administering federal programs to have merit personnel progress, and whether it is consistent with federal standards for a merit system of personnel administration. The conclusions reached in the document indicate that there is nothing in the legislative history inconsistent with the federal standards, and that the promulgated standards are a valid exercise of statutory power. The document presents questions regarding the racial discrimination in hiring by state agencies and examines the legislative history of the 1939 Social Security Act Amendments to reach these conclusions.
10/27/2020
-
28 CFR Subpart V‐‐Authorizations with Respect to Personnel and Certain Administrative Matters
The document consists of two separate letters, one discussing the request for authorization to turn over materials to the Oregon State Bar for a disbarred attorney's reinstatement hearing, and the other addressing the suggestion of issuing an executive order requiring non-discrimination in federal contracts. The conclusion reached in the first letter is that the U.S. Attorney should be authorized to cooperate with the Oregon State Bar, and in the second letter, the conclusion is that issuing such a broad executive order would create more problems than it would solve. The questions presented for review include the legal authority of the President to issue such a broad order and the potential problems it may create, as well as the implications of turning over materials to the Oregon State Bar for a disbarred attorney's reinstatement hearing.
10/27/2020
-
Power of Congress to prohibit display of Confederate flag.
The document discusses the power of Congress to regulate the display of the Confederate flag, specifically in response to a constituent's letter urging legislation to make it illegal to display the flag. The conclusion reached is that while Congress may not be able to prohibit private display of the flag due to First Amendment protections, it is arguable that Congress could have the power to prohibit state display of the flag under the Fourteenth Amendment. The document also addresses the misunderstanding caused by a previous letter to Congressman Minish and the decision not to clarify the matter further. The questions presented for review include whether Congress has the power to regulate state display of the Confederate flag and whether further clarification should be provided to Congressman Minish.
10/27/2020
-
Response to your letter of May 18, 1965, with regard to the contract which your Agency proposes to enter into with Donohue, Kaufmann and Shaw.
The document is a response to a letter regarding a proposed contract between an agency and a law firm. It discusses the legal statutes and history related to the hiring of outside counsel by government agencies. The conclusion reached is that the agency has the power to enter into the contract without certification by the Attorney General. The document presents questions about the interpretation of specific statutes, the scope of legal services, and the necessity of certification for outside counsel, which are open for review.
10/27/2020