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 2051–2060 of 2214
-
Applicability to parolees of Section 504(a) of the Labor‐Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
The document discusses the impasse in the application of § 504(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, specifically regarding the eligibility for union office of a person who has been convicted of certain crimes, imprisoned, and then paroled. The Third Circuit and the NLRB have conflicting views on when the disqualification period begins, creating an embarrassing impasse. The document suggests that the Board maintain and either grant or deny applications for exemption filed by individuals in the same position as Holan, as this would best permit a judicial resolution of the question and fully protect the rights of the affected persons. The conclusion reached is that the Board should recognize its limitation on resolving the matter and act in a way that will most readily permit the final resolution of the question by the judiciary. The document presents the question of how to best resolve the impasse in the application of § 504(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and suggests a course of action for the Board to take.
10/27/2020
-
Suggestion that the President issue an executive order requiring in substance that every contract, grant, or other financial arrangement entered into by the Federal Government contain an undertaking by the other party not to engage in discrimination
The document discusses the suggestion of issuing an executive order requiring every contract, grant, or financial arrangement entered into by the Federal Government to contain an undertaking not to engage in discrimination. The conclusion reached is that such a broad approach would create more problems than it would solve, as it may not have legal authority and would cover a vast scope of activities. The document presents questions about the legal authority of the President to issue such an order, the potential administrative problems, and the implications for programs like Medicare. It also raises the question of whether a more specific order would be more effective in addressing discrimination in federal programs and activities.
10/27/2020
-
Inquiry from U.S. Attorney, District of Oregon, with reference to Bar Association Proceedings.
The document is a request for authorization to turn over materials to the Oregon State Bar for a hearing on the reinstatement of a disbarred attorney. The Deputy Attorney General has sought the views of the Criminal Division, which recommends authorizing the cooperation. The conclusion reached in the document is that Mr. Lezak should be authorized to cooperate with the Oregon State Bar in the manner described in his letter. The questions presented for review include whether Mr. Lezak should be allowed to turn over materials to the Oregon State Bar and if the cooperation is necessary for the hearing on the reinstatement of the disbarred attorney.
10/27/2020
-
Delegation to the Secretary of the Interior of the President's Authority under Section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862(b)).
The document discusses the proposal to delegate the President's authority under section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to crude oil imports. The conclusion reached is that while there is no legal objection to the delegation as a general matter, there are serious questions about whether the particular delegation proposed is justified as a policy matter and consistent with the constitutional responsibilities of the President. The document presents questions for review regarding the justification for the delegation, the potential conflict of interest, the importance of the matter, and the alternative suggestions for handling the delegation. It also suggests incorporating procedural safeguards and consultation with the Attorney General if the delegation is made.
10/27/2020
-
Constitutional or statutory authority of the President to make available to the widow of the Reverend Mr. Reeb an Air Force airplane to transport her from Birmingham to Boston.
The document is a response to a request for advice on the President's authority to make an Air Force airplane available for humanitarian purposes. The conclusion reached is that the President has the authority, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to use personnel and property of the Armed Forces for humanitarian activities. The document also presents a review of the constitutional and statutory provisions that support this conclusion, as well as examples of previous humanitarian activities carried out by the President using the Armed Forces. The questions presented for review include the constitutional and statutory authority of the President to use the Armed Forces for humanitarian purposes, as well as the potential misuse of public funds.
10/27/2020
-
Does a single incident involving the transportation of a narcotic drug (heroin) as part of an unlawful scheme to resell it for gain make the carrier an illicit trafficker within the meaning of Section 212(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
The document is a letter from the Attorney General responding to a request for an opinion on whether a single resident involved in the transportation of a narcotic drug as part of an unlawful scheme to resell it would be considered an illicit trafficker within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Attorney General concludes that a single act of conscious participation in illicit narcotic traffic would subject an alien to exclusion as an illicit trafficker. The letter also discusses the statutory construction of the term "illicit trafficker" and provides the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization's views on the inquiry.
10/27/2020
-
Whether the Administrator of General Services has the authority to utilize State and local law‐enforcement personnel to enforce federal law
The document is a response to a letter requesting the views on whether the Administrator of General Services has the authority to use state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal law, prevent breaches of the peace, and suppress unlawful assemblies on property under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The conclusion reached in the document is that the General Services Administrator does have the necessary authority to utilize state and local law enforcement agencies for these purposes. The document also presents questions regarding the interpretation of the statute and the extent of authority granted to the General Services Administration, as well as the historical context of state and local law enforcement officers enforcing federal laws on federal property.
10/27/2020
-
Attached letter to Department of State, construing Section 212(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The document is a request for an opinion on the interpretation of the term "illicit trafficker" in Section 212(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The specific question is whether a person involved in a single incident of illicit narcotics trafficking can be considered an "illicit trafficker." The State Department argues that a single incident cannot be the basis for finding an alien to be an "illicit trafficker," while the opinion submitted by Mr. Vinings supports the single-incident construction. The conclusion reached is that the proper definition of "trafficking" depends on the legislative context, and while there is doubt, the opinion of Mr. Vinings is deemed to be meritorious. The document presents a review of the questions surrounding the interpretation of the term "illicit trafficker" and seeks approval for the conclusion reached by Mr. Vinings.
10/27/2020
-
Publication of photographs taken by Yoichi Okamoto.
The document discusses the potential publication of photographs of the President taken by Yoichi Okamoto, an employee of the Executive Office. It concludes that the photographs may be released to a publisher, with the condition that any profits from the book be donated to a specified public or nonprofit private organization. The document also presents the legal considerations and limitations surrounding the release of the photographs, including the need for a revocable license and the prohibition on the White House spending any money received from royalty requirements or license fees. The questions presented for review include the authorization for publication, the conditions for donating profits, and the preparation of necessary papers for publication.
10/27/2020
-
Hearings with respect to matters related to defense contracts
The document is a response to a request for views on questions raised in a letter from the Chairmen of the Military Operations Subcommittee. The questions pertain to whether a defense agency can require cost or pricing data from a contractor, or if the contractor is free to negotiate only for the submission of pricing data. The conclusion reached is that both questions should be answered in the affirmative, based on the legislative history and text of the relevant subsection. The document also discusses the flexibility given to contracting officers in negotiating contract prices and the alignment of the views with the present Armed Services Procurement Regulations.
10/27/2020