Showing 1551–1560 of 2214

• 6/16/1978

  Furnishing Information to Congress Under Section 222(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act

  This document is a memorandum opinion addressing whether employees of the Interstate Commerce Commission can provide documents or information to a member of the staff of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary without fear of criminal liability. The conclusion reached is that, subject to certain conditions, employees of the Commission may lawfully furnish information protected by the Act. The document also presents questions for review, including whether the exception provided in the Act applies to the prohibition against the release of any fact or information, and whether a subcommittee investigator or attorney is considered an officer or agent of the Government of the United States. Additionally, it discusses the limitations on access to information protected by the Act and the factors that determine whether officials acting on behalf of Congress are exercising their power within the proper limits of their authority.

  6/16/1978

• 6/6/1978

  Litigation Authority of the Comptroller of the Currency

  This document is a memorandum opinion for the Comptroller of the Currency regarding the litigation authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The conclusion reached is that the Comptroller of the Currency may appear in United States courts by its own counsel to carry out its functions under the Securities Exchange Act. The document presents questions for review regarding the delegation of litigation authority for bank securities in connection with the relevant Exchange Act provisions, and whether it remains with the SEC or has been delegated to the Comptroller.

  6/6/1978

• 6/5/1978

  Legality of Common Carriers Assisting the Federal Government In Connection With Warrantless Electronic Surveillance for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

  This document is a memorandum opinion regarding the legality of common carriers providing technical assistance for warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. The conclusion reached is that such activities are not prohibited by the Communications Act or Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The document presents questions for review regarding the liability of telephone companies providing technical assistance in connection with Presidentially authorized warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and whether such assistance would violate the Communications Act or Title III. It also discusses the constitutional power of the President to take measures to protect the nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power.

  6/5/1978

• 5/26/1978

  Whether the Special Counsel for the Merit Systems Protection Board May Be Protected by Statute From Removal by the President Except for Specific Cause

  This document is a memorandum opinion regarding the removal power of the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board under the proposed Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The conclusion reached is that the Congress may not properly limit the grounds for removal of the Special Counsel by the President, as the Special Counsel's functions are considered executive in character. The document presents questions for review regarding the authority of Congress to delimit the President's power to remove an official, the independence of the Special Counsel from the quasi-judicial process, and the executive nature of the Special Counsel's functions.

  5/26/1978

• 5/18/1978

  Legality of Designation of Certain Acting Officials by the Secretary of Energy (II)

  This document addresses the legality of the designation of acting officials by the Secretary of Energy in the Department of Energy. It discusses the provisions of the Vacancy Act and the conclusions reached regarding the authority of the President to make interim appointments. The document also presents questions about the legality of actions taken by Department of Energy officials in an acting capacity, as well as the compensation received by the acting officials. The conclusions reached in the document include the interpretation of the Vacancy Act and the application of the de facto officer rule to the situation. The questions presented for review include the interpretation of the Vacancy Act, the authority of acting officials, and the compensation received by them.

  5/18/1978

• 5/18/1978

  Legality of Designation of Certain Acting Officials by the Secretary of Energy

  This document discusses the legality of the designation of certain acting officials by the Secretary of Energy under the Department of Energy Organization Act. It concludes that the President and the Secretary of Energy have the authority to designate acting officials to fill initial vacancies in the Department of Energy, even if they do not hold advice and consent positions. The document also presents questions regarding the authority of acting officials, their compensation, and the applicability of the Vacancy Act to the situation. It emphasizes the need to fill vacancies with qualified individuals on a full-time basis, and the reliance on general powers and responsibilities to carry out that statutory end.

  5/18/1978

• 5/18/1978

  Whether Prosecutions for "Eluding Inspection" Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 May Be Brought in the District Where the Defendant Is Apprehended

  This document discusses the issue of venue for prosecutions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically for "eluding inspection" violations. The conclusion reached is that prosecutions for such violations must be brought in the district where the offense was committed, rather than where the defendant is apprehended. The document presents questions about the constitutionality of prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and whether they can continue to be brought in the district where the defendant is apprehended, as authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1329. It also raises the issue of reconciling the language of § 1329 with the requirement that prosecutions be undertaken in the district where the crime was committed.

  5/18/1978

• 5/17/1978

  Power of Congress to Authorize Federal Officers or Agencies to Remove or Discipline Presidential Appointees Performing Executive Functions

  This document discusses the constitutional power of Congress to authorize the removal or disciplinary action of Presidential appointees performing executive functions. The document concludes that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the removal of executive officers appointed by the President, and that the power to remove is implicit in the power to appoint and must necessarily be retained by the President. The document also questions whether Congress may confer on the Board the authority to take disciplinary action against Presidential appointees, and concludes that doing so would interfere with the President's necessary direction and control of such officials. The questions presented for review include whether Congress could amend the bill to confer upon the Board the authority to take disciplinary action against Presidential appointees and whether Congress has the authority to prescribe sanctions against executive branch officials who act in violation of existing law.

  5/17/1978

• 5/16/1978

  Due Process Requirements in Transferring Inmates From the General Prison Population to Administrative and Disciplinary Segregation (II)

  This document discusses the constitutional considerations involved in transferring inmates from the general prison population to administrative segregation. It concludes that the same standards would apply to both Federal and State penal institutions. The document also presents the question of whether a liberty interest derives from the Constitution in the absence of provisions relating to prisoners. The conclusion reached is that transfers from the general prison population to maximum security trigger constitutional safeguards, even in the absence of provisions creating a liberty interest.

  5/16/1978

• 5/16/1978

  Reorganization Plan Dealing With More Than One Logically Consistent Subject Matter

  This document discusses the interpretation of the phrase "dealing with more than one logically consistent subject matter" in the Reorganization Act. It explains that this limitation was introduced to prevent the submission of plans containing unrelated actions. The legislative history of the 1977 version of the Reorganization Act provides examples of what could be considered logically consistent subject matter. The conclusion reached is that while the language may be indefinite, it does provide some guidance on the intended meaning. The document presents questions about the interpretation of the phrase and provides examples of logically consistent subject matter for review.

  5/16/1978