Showing 1541–1550 of 2214

• 7/20/1978

  Revocation of White House Press Passes

  In this memo, the OLC considered the proposed revocation of White House press passes for several reporters working for Soviet news organizations. The OLC based its reasoning on the standard set by Sherrill v. Knight, 659 F. 2d 124 (1977), where the court found that Washington-based correspondents had a First Amendment right to not be denied a press pass “arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons” if similarly situated member of the press were given regular access to the White House press facilities. Based on the Sherill decision, the OLC concluded that denying a White House press pass to the Soviet correspondents at issue could not be described as “arbitrary” because the revocation would substantially further U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, the OLC noted that due to principles of separation of powers, a court would not examine the validity of this type of foreign policy decision. In terms of due process considerations, the OLC concluded that under notice requirement in Sherrill, the Soviet reporters were only entitled to a written statement explaining that the revocation of their passes was in retaliation for the actions their government-employer took against members of the American press in Moscow.

  9/2/2022

• 7/19/1978

  Representation by Former Assistant U.S. Attorney of Defendants in Case Brought by United States on Behalf of Indian Tribe

  This document discusses a conflict of interest case involving a former Assistant U.S. Attorney (A) who wants to represent defendants in a case brought by the United States on behalf of an Indian tribe. The conclusion reached is that A's involvement in the case, even if not substantial, still constitutes "substantial participation" under the conflict-of-interest statute. The document presents questions regarding A's involvement in the case, the application of the criminal conflict-of-interest laws, and the American Bar Association (ABA) Code of Professional Responsibility. It also raises questions about A's disqualification under Canon 4 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility and the possibility of a client waiving the confidentiality requirement. The document suggests that further factual details are needed to make a final judgment on A's proposed representation.

  7/19/1978

• 7/18/1978

  Application of Antilobbying Laws to Materials Prepared by the Department of the Interior for Public Release in Connection With Proposed Legislation

  This document is a memorandum opinion for the solicitor of the Department of the Interior regarding the effect of antilobbying laws and appropriation act riders on materials prepared for public release in connection with proposed legislation. The conclusion reached in the document is that the purpose of the antilobbying laws is to restrict the use of appropriated funds for disseminations urging the public to contact members of Congress about pending legislative matters. The questions presented for review include whether press releases, statements in local newspapers, and newsletters from the Department of the Interior raise concerns under the relevant statutory provisions.

  7/18/1978

• 7/17/1978

  Obligations to the Subjects of the MKULTRA Drug-testing Program

  In this memo, the OLC addressed whether the CIA had a legal duty to notify MKULTRA test subjects who remained at risk of negative health effects due to their involvement in the study, and which agency was required to carry out the notification process. The OLC concluded that the CIA had the duty to notify those whose health could still be impaired, and had a "lawful authority" to do so. The OLC added that the CIA could also lawfully ask another agency to carry out the notification process.

  9/2/2022

• 7/12/1978

  Service of Department of Justice Attorney as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of State Chapter of National Organization

  This document discusses the propriety of an attorney, Mr. A, engaging in certain activities as a member of a national organization. The principal issue is whether A may serve as chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of his State’s chapter of the organization. The document concludes that A's activities as chairman or even as an active member of the Legal Affairs Committee would constitute the private practice of his profession and therefore be prohibited by 28 CFR 45.735-9(a). Additionally, the document presents questions regarding A's other activities in the organization unrelated to the work of the Legal Affairs Committee, such as attendance at meetings, educating present and prospective members, appearing on radio programs, and lobbying elected officials, and provides guidance on the Department’s regulations regarding these activities.

  7/12/1978

• 6/29/1978

  Service of Private Sector Persons on Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees

  This document is a memorandum opinion addressing the scope of the term "particular matter" as used in 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) in relation to the service of private sector individuals on advisory committees in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The conclusion reached is that the term "particular matter" includes recommendations affecting a category of products or a number of firms similarly situated, and that participation in such matters triggers the disqualification requirement under § 208(a). The document presents questions regarding the interpretation of the term "particular matter" and the application of the disqualification requirement to advisory committee members with outside affiliations, as well as the exemption procedures under § 208(b)(1). The memorandum also highlights the need for close scrutiny of each special Government employee's outside affiliation to determine whether an affiliation may properly be deemed unlikely to affect the integrity of service as an advisory committee member.

  6/29/1978

• 6/23/1978

  Legality of Department of Defense Hiring Practices in Foreign-Area Installations

  This document is a memorandum opinion addressing the legality of Department of Defense (DOD) hiring practices in foreign-area installations. The conclusion reached in the document is that the Veterans Preference Act is applicable to overseas positions, and there is no legal justification for excusing its application to regular DOD appointments. However, the document also presents the opinion that the Commission may properly excuse application of the Act to the local national positions filled by dependents if it finds that such application would not benefit preference eligibles. The questions presented for review include whether the Civil Service Commission had authority to promulgate certain hiring practices, the effect of Public Law 92-129 on the Veterans Preference Act, and whether NATO SOFA and working arrangements under that agreement supersede the Veterans Preference Act.

  6/23/1978

• 6/23/1978

  Liability and Insurance Coverage for Government Employees Who Use Automobiles in Connection With the Official Travel of the President and Vice President

  This document addresses liability and insurance coverage for Government employees and other individuals using automobiles in connection with the official travel of the President and Vice President. The conclusions reached in the document are that the United States assumes liability for the negligence of an employee operating any motor vehicle in the course of official duties, and the status of an individual as full time, part time, paid, or unpaid does not determine whether they are considered an "employee" of the Government. The document presents seven questions for review, including the liability coverage provided by the Government for its employees, which staff are covered by such protection, and the Government's responsibility if a person for whom liability coverage is provided uses the vehicle for a personal frolic and an accident occurs.

  6/23/1978

• 6/20/1978

  Role and Composition of Certain Advisory Committees Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act

  This document is a memorandum opinion for the General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture regarding the role and composition of advisory committees under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act. The conclusions reached in the document are that the Secretary of Agriculture must appoint and consult with advisory committees prior to undertaking certain actions under the Acts, and that committee membership may be broadened in keeping with the Federal Advisory Committee Act to ensure balanced representation. The questions presented for review include whether the Secretary must appoint and consult with advisory committees, and whether committee membership must be limited to members of State agencies as expressly provided in the Acts.

  6/20/1978

• 6/19/1978

  Jurisdiction over victimless crimes committed by non-Indians on Indian reservations

  The OLC concluded that state courts had exclusive jurisdiction over “victimless crimes,” like drug possession or use, committed by non-Indigenous Americans on Native American reservations. A subsequent opinion on this topic was written on March 21, 1979.

  9/2/2022