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).

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 701710 of 2202

  • Status of NSC as an "Agency" under FOIA

    This opinion concludes that the the National Security Council ("NSC") is not an agency for FOIA purposes, since it fails the "substantial independent authority to perform specific functions" test, applied by the courts in recent cases. The opinion overrules a 1978 OLC opinion on the same subject. 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/936176/download.

    9/20/1993

  • Ethics Issues Related to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986

    A government employee-inventor who assigns his rights in an invention to the United States and accepts the government's payment of amounts tied to the resulting royalties, as provided in the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, may continue to work on the invention without violating the statute against taking part in matters in which he has a financial interest, 18 U.S.C. § 208, or the statute forbidding supplementation of federal salaries, 18 U.S.C. § 209. Under 18 U.S.C § 208, a government employee-inventor may not take official action with respect to an agreement for development of his invention entered into by the United States and a company with which the employee has contracted to exploit the invention abroad. 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/20491/download.

    9/13/1993

  • General Services Administration Printing Operations

    The Joint Committee on Printing lacks the authority to alter the General Services Administration's printing operations because the only basis for that authority is an invalid legislative veto provision contained in 44 U.S.C. § 501. Section 207 of Public Law Number 102-392 requires executive branch entities (other than the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency) to procure printing related to the publication of government publications by or through the Government Printing Office.. 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/20486/download.

    9/13/1993

  • Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) to the Briefing and Arguing of Cases in Which the Department of Justice Represents a Party

    Section 207(c) of title 18 forbids a former senior employee of the Department of Justice, for one year after his or her service ends, from signing a brief or making an oral argument in a case where the Department represents one of the parties. 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/20496/download.

    8/27/1993

  • Construction of § 406 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990

    Section 406 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 does not extend the authority to make bonus payments to employees at the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to section 601 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal years 1989 and 1990 beyond the expiration date of the demonstration project established by section 601. 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/20501/download.

    8/23/1993

  • Applications for political asylum by refugees who allege persecution under China's harsh and coercive family planning regime

    9/2/2022

  • Use in a criminal prosecution of documents filled out by an employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with applications by illegal aliens for employment authorization cards

    9/2/2022

  • Constitutional Issues Raised by Death Penalty Proposals

    9/2/2022

  • Applicability of the Civil Service Provisions of Title 5 of the United States Code to the United States Enrichment Corporation

    The United States Enrichment Corporation is exempt from the civil service provisions of title 5 of the United States Code. 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/20506/download.

    6/22/1993

  • Legal Assessment of the War Powers Resolution National Security Council

    This opinion, written by Daniel Koffsky, analyzed how courts would evaluate the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, including by addressing justiciability questions. Most notably, the opinion concluded that section 5(b) of the Resolution, which requires the president to terminate hostilities if more than sixty days have elapsed without Congressional approval, was facially constitutional but in some circumstances would be unconstitutional as applied. However, the opinion concluded that it was unlikely for a court to reach the merits of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

    9/2/2022

Related Content