Showing 1481–1490 of 2214

• 3/15/1979

  Department of Justice Use of Personnel and Resources of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Desegregation Litigation

  This document discusses the applicability of the Eagleton-Biden Amendment to the use of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) resources by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in desegregation litigation. The conclusion reached is that the Eagleton-Biden Amendment does not restrict HEW's cooperation with the Department of Justice in preparing or bringing a lawsuit to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The document presents questions regarding the ability of the Department of Justice to use HEW resources and personnel, and provides guidelines for the use of HEW resources in connection with title VI litigation, including school desegregation cases that may result in student transportation orders.

  3/15/1979

• 3/14/1979

  Designation of Acting General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority

  This document discusses the issue of designating an Acting General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority. It concludes that the President has the authority to make such a designation, based on statutory interpretation. The questions presented for review include whether the lack of a General Counsel hampers the operations of the Authority, and whether the President retains the power to make an interim designation under the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, despite the subsequent Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Additionally, the document addresses the applicability of the Vacancy Act to the situation at hand.

  3/14/1979

• 2/16/1979

  Conveyance of Federal Lands for Airport Development

  This document discusses the authority for the conveyance of Federal lands for airport development under the Federal Airport Act of 1946 and the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970. It concludes that the authority conferred by the 1970 Act is sufficient to meet the concerns raised, and there is no need to reinstate the authority initially conferred by Executive Order No. 10536. The document presents questions about the interrelationship of the two pieces of legislation, the continuation of grants under the 1946 Act, and the applicability of Section 23 of the 1970 Act to projects under the 1946 Act. It also addresses concerns about additional requirements of the 1970 Act and the fear that conveyances made under Section 23 would trigger those requirements.

  2/16/1979

• 2/14/1979

  Assertion of State Secrets Privilege in Civil Litigation

  This document discusses the assertion of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation and addresses two questions: whether properly classified information qualifies for nondisclosure based on the state secrets privilege, and whether a claim of privilege for state secrets may be asserted concurrently with other claims of privilege for the same information. The document concludes that properly classified material would satisfy the criteria for the state secrets privilege, and that the privilege may be asserted with regard to the identities of national security informants. It also states that the state secrets privilege may be asserted concurrently with other claims of privilege for the same information, as long as all concerns underlying the privileges are addressed before a decision is made to release the information.

  2/14/1979

• 2/9/1979

  Transfer of Management Functions Over National Monuments in Admiralty and Misty Fiords, Alaska

  This document is a memorandum discussing the transfer of management functions over national forest lands in Admiralty and Misty Fiords, Alaska from the Forest Service to the National Park Service. The conclusion reached is that the Executive Order No. 6166 requires the transfer of management, and a reorganization plan or legislative action is necessary to authorize the Forest Service to administer the two monuments. The document presents questions regarding the interpretation of Executive Order No. 6166, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Antiquities Act of 1906, as well as the potential conflict between monument and national forest uses.

  2/9/1979

• 2/7/1979

  Employment of Temporary or Intermittent Attorneys and Investigators by the Office of the Special Counsel

  This document discusses the legal and ethical considerations of employing temporary or intermittent attorneys and investigators by the Office of the Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board. It concludes that while employees from other Federal agencies can be hired under certain conditions, the acceptance of gratuitous services from the private sector is prohibited. The document also addresses conflict of interest laws, compensation limitations, and postemployment restrictions for both regular and special government employees. The questions presented for review include the statutory authorization for hiring employees outside the competitive service, the acceptance of voluntary services, and the consistency with relevant conflict of interest laws.

  2/7/1979

• 2/2/1979

  Jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Council in Labor Disputes Concerning the Conditions of Employment of Veterans Administration Personnel

  This document is a memorandum opinion for the Administrator of Veterans Affairs regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Council (FLRC) in labor disputes concerning the conditions of employment of medical, dental, and nursing personnel of the Veterans Administration. The conclusion reached in the document is that 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a) does not exempt the VA from the requirement to negotiate with the Union on the procedures for the evaluation of probationary professional medical employees. The document presents questions regarding the jurisdiction of the FLRC in labor disputes concerning the conditions of employment of medical, dental, and nursing personnel of the Veterans Administration, as well as the obligation of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs to abide by the decision of the FLRC. It also raises questions about the exemption of the VA from the requirement to negotiate with the Union on the procedures for the evaluation of probationary professional medical employees.

  2/2/1979

• 2/2/1979

  Legality of Television Surveillance in Government Offices

  This document discusses the legality of using concealed television cameras for surveillance in government buildings where the government officer occupying the space has consented to the surveillance. The document concludes that the Fourth Amendment is the only existing check on governmental action in such situations. It also presents a detailed analysis of the Fourth Amendment's requirements and the implications for television surveillance in government offices. The document raises questions about the reasonable expectation of privacy in government offices, the authority of the government to conduct surveillance, and the public nature of the areas to be surveilled. It recommends that responsibility for screening proposed television surveillance be vested in specific officials and that guidelines be formulated to ensure consistent screening in the Criminal Division and the Investigation Review Unit.

  2/2/1979

• 1/26/1979

  Disclosure of Grand Jury Materials to Attorneys in the Civil Division for Use in Civil Proceedings

  The document discusses the question of whether grand jury materials or information derived from grand jury materials may be disclosed to attorneys in the Civil Division for use in civil proceedings without a court order. The conclusion reached is that Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) permits grand jury materials or information derived from them to be disclosed to attorneys in the civil division for use in civil proceedings without court order. The document also presents a word of caution regarding the potential misuse of grand jury materials for civil purposes and suggests that if there is a genuine need for disclosure during the pendency of the grand jury investigation, steps should be taken to ensure that the civil interests of the Government do not shape the direction of the criminal grand jury investigation.

  1/26/1979

• 1/24/1979

  Application of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 to the Components of the Department of Justice

  This document is a legal opinion regarding the application of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 to the Department of Justice, specifically the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The opinion concludes that the DEA lacks authority to provide assistance by grant under 21 U.S.C. § 873(a)(2), but is authorized to fund experimental enforcement projects by State or local agencies through either a grant or a cooperative agreement. The document raises questions about the effect of the Act on the general authority of the Department of Justice to enter into contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, as well as the extent to which the Attorney General has delegated authority derived from the Act and to the components of the Department. It also presents the particular question of whether the Act and Department regulations authorize the DEA to enter grant agreements with State and local governments under 21 U.S.C. § 873(a).

  1/24/1979