Showing 961–970 of 2202

• 9/20/1984

  Overview of the Neutrality Act

  Overview of the Neutrality Act, focusing on explanations of certain key provisions, and summarizing various judicial and Attorney General opinions interpreting those provisions. 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/23671/download.

  9/20/1984

• 9/1/1984

  Recission of Requirement for Quarterly Reports by United States Attorneys Regarding News Media Subpoenas

  The OLC stated that the reporting requirements detailing news media subpoenas could be rescinded by memorandum rather than by an order from the attorney general. The OLC also declined to assess the continued usefulness of the reports detailing news media subpoenas, and advised the associate deputy attorney general to consult the Office of Public Affairs. However, it noted "one or two" instances during the Reagan administration where the reporting requirements "were not fully observed," and suggested that mainting the requirements might "serve as a useful reminder to the U.S. Attorneys that this is an important and delicate subject."

  9/2/2022

• 8/31/1984

  Appointments to the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution

  Presidential appointment of the Chief Justice of the United States to the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution is consistent with the Appointments Clause, art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and, as applied to the unique circumstances of this Commission, with general separation of powers principles. In addition, participation of the Chief Justice on the Commission would appear to be permissible under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Members of Congress may participate on the Commission without violating the Appointments Clause or the Incompatibility Clause, art. I, § 6, cl. 2, if the Commission creates an executive committee to discharge the purely executive functions of the Commission, or if the noncongressional members determine that the Commission will not act unless a full majority, including the congressional members, approve. 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/23666/download.

  8/31/1984

• 8/27/1984

  Recommendation That the Department of Justice Not Defend the Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984

  Provisions of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 that retroactively extend the appointments of bankruptcy judges who were in office at the time of the expiration of the transition provisions of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, violate the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. The Justice Department should not defend the constitutionality of the reinstatements under the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, because its general obligation to defend the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress does not extend to defending laws that unconstitutionally infringe upon the powers of the President. 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/23661/download.

  8/27/1984

• 8/17/1984

  Authority of the State Department Office of Security to Investigate Passport and Visa Fraud

  Section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 did not confer on the Inspector General of the Department of State the authority to investigate passport and visa fraud by persons unconnected with the Department of State, and, accordingly, did not limit any inherent or derivative authority the Secretary of State might have to investigate such fraud. Special Agents assigned to the Office of Security of the Department of State may conduct consensual questioning of individuals and may request that an individual consent to being questioned elsewhere, provided that a reasonable person would understand that compliance with such a request is voluntary. 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/23656/download.

  8/17/1984

• 8/9/1984

  Constitutionality of Legislation Prohibiting the Mailing of Sexually Oriented Advertisements

  A draft bill that would prohibit the mailing of photographic sexually oriented advertisements without the addressee's prior written consent, and that would create strict criminal liability in any person who knowingly sends any sexually oriented advertisements to minors, regardless of whether the advertisements are photographic or not, would likely be held unconstitutional by the courts. The provisions in the draft bill are more extensive than necessary to support the interests asserted by the government, and thus would be held inconsistent with protections accorded commercial speech under the First Amendment. 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/23651/download.

  8/9/1984

• 7/17/1984

  Procedures for Exchanging Instruments of Ratification for Bilateral Law Enforcement Treaties

  As long as the Attorney General is duly authorized by the President—or his delegate in the field of foreign affairs, the Secretary of State—there is no legal barrier to the Attorney General witnessing or signing a Protocol of Exchange of Ratifications on behalf of the United States. In addition, there is no legal barrier to the exchange of instruments of ratification occurring at the Department of Justice. 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/23646/download.

  7/17/1984

• 7/5/1984

  Revised Proposed International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

  This opinion provides feedback on the second draft of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR"), which tried to address the issue of overbreadth in its first draft by narrowing the statutory definition of “export” and “technical data,” as well as by expanding the exemptions provided from the licensing requirement. The opinion concludes that the second draft of ITAR remains vulnerable to prior restraint challenges, and the State Department should further narrow the regulations in its next draft. 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/936161/download.

  7/5/1984

• 6/21/1984

  Authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Conduct Defensive Litigation

  In general, the Attorney General has plenary authority over the supervision and conduct of litigation to which the United States is a party. Courts have narrowly construed statutory grants of litigation authority to agencies to permit such power only when the authorizing statutes are sufficiently clear and specific to ensure that Congress intended an exception to the general rule. The litigation authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is limited to that which is specifically provided by statute, namely, enforcement actions brought against private sector employers. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4(b), 2000e-5, 2000e-6. Accordingly, the Commission may not independently defend suits brought against it in connection with its federal sector administrative and enforcement and adjudicative functions, or actions brought against it by its own employees challenging Commission personnel decisions. Such suits are to be handled by attorneys under the supervision of the Attorney General. 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/23641/download.

  6/21/1984

• 6/15/1984

  Gifts Received on Official Travel

  Gifts given to United States employees by a Japanese government agency may be retained consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 7342 and implementing regulations if the items are worth less than $140. More valuable gifts must be deposited with the employing agency. Gifts from private Japanese organizations are governed by 19 U.S.C. § 209(a). That statute, as consistently construed by the Department of Justice, makes it a crime to receive items of any value given as additional compensation for performing government service. The gifts from private Japanese organizations appear to have been given as a result of the federal employee's official duties, and may not be accepted under § 209(a), and pursuant to the statute, must be returned to their donors. In addition, Department of Justice conflict-of-interest regulations would independently prohibit acceptance of these gifts if the donors have litigation or financial business with the Department. 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/23636/download.

  6/15/1984