Showing 1571–1580 of 2214

• 3/16/1978

  Transfer of Responsibility to Make Preliminary Determination of Merits of Federal Employee's Complaint From Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Civil Rights Commission's Successor Agency

  This document is a memorandum opinion regarding Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, which involves the transfer of the responsibility for enforcement of equal opportunity in Federal employment from the Civil Service Commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The document addresses two legal questions related to the transfer. The first question is whether the independence of the successor agency would be affected by the transfer of the responsibility for making a preliminary determination of the merits of a Federal employee’s allegation. The second question is whether the placement of power in an executive agency to review and overturn a preliminary decision reached by an independent agency impinges on the independent status of the latter. The conclusion reached in the document is that the delegation under § 3(b) of the Plan will not raise questions as to the independent status of the CSC successor agency.

  3/16/1978

• 3/10/1978

  Authority of the Department of Justice to Retain Private Legal Counsel

  This document discusses the authority of the Department of Justice to retain private legal counsel for the defense of federal officials. The document presents two memorandums, one from the Congressional Research Service and another unsigned memorandum, both of which conclude that there is substantial doubt whether the Department of Justice has the statutory authority to retain private attorneys. However, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel disagrees with this conclusion, arguing that the Department's policy of retaining private attorneys is adequately supported by the implied authority of the Attorney General. The document also highlights the actions taken by Congress, including providing appropriations for the Department's policy, which supports the view that authority exists for the Department's policy. The questions presented for review include the authority of the Department of Justice to retain private legal counsel and the implications of Congressional actions in supporting the Department's policy.

  3/10/1978

• 3/8/1978

  CIA Investigations of United States Persons in the United States

  This document is a memorandum opinion discussing the Central Intelligence Agency's proposed procedures for investigating United States persons in the country. The document raises concerns about the delineation of individuals subject to investigation, the purposes of the investigation, the method of investigation, coordination with other regulations, and record retention. The conclusions reached in the document are that the proposed procedures may raise problems in light of previous court decisions, and the document presents questions for review regarding the legality and appropriateness of the proposed procedures. The main questions for review include the delineation of individuals subject to investigation, the purposes of the investigation, the method of investigation, coordination with other regulations, and record retention.

  3/8/1978

• 3/1/1978

  Authority of Department of Transportation to Compensate Parties Intervening in Proceedings Before the Department

  This document is a memorandum opinion addressing the issue of whether the Department of Transportation has the authority to provide compensation to parties intervening in proceedings before the department. The conclusion reached is that the decision in Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission does not preclude the Department of Transportation from determining whether it has the statutory authority to provide compensation to parties who intervene in proceedings. The document presents the questions of whether the Department of Transportation has explicit or implicit statutory authority to provide compensation, as well as the standards and procedures under which such compensation may be provided.

  3/1/1978

• 2/28/1978

  Whether U.S. Attorneys Are Inferior Officers Under the Appointments Clause

  This document discusses the question of whether U.S. Attorneys are considered inferior officers under the Constitution, and if Congress could allow their appointment by the Attorney General. The conclusion reached is that U.S. Attorneys can be considered inferior officers, as the Attorney General has the authority to direct them in the discharge of their duties. The document presents a review of the constitutional provision regarding the appointment of inferior officers and raises the question of whether U.S. Attorneys fall under this category, as well as the historical context and interpretation of the term "inferior officer."

  2/28/1978

• 2/27/1978

  Whether the Arms Control and Disarmament Act RequiresPreparation of an Arms Control Impact Statement for Nonweapons Programs

  This document discusses the interpretation of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act and whether the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) has the authority to require the Department of Energy to prepare an "Arms Control Impact Statement" (ACIS) for nonweapons programs that may affect arms control policy. The conclusion reached is that the Act does not require the preparation of an ACIS for programs not designed or intended to be applied as weapons. The questions presented for review include whether the term "weapons" in the Act modifies "technology" as well as "systems," and whether the legislative history supports the interpretation that the Act applies only to programs with a military purpose.

  2/27/1978

• 2/24/1978

  Responsibility and Authority of FBI Agents to Respond to Criminal Offenses Outside the Statutory Jurisdiction of the FBI

  This document discusses the responsibility and authority of FBI agents to respond to criminal offenses outside the statutory jurisdiction of the FBI. The conclusion reached is that FBI agents have no Federal authority to take action in response to non-violations of Federal law, but they have authority and legal obligation under State law to act in response to local criminal offenses. The document also addresses the Department of Justice's representation of employees and the payment of money damages in civil actions. It also discusses the potential criminal proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 111 against those who assault FBI agents intervening in State or local offenses. The document suggests that manual instructions should be issued to FBI agents, outlining the conclusions reached in the opinion, and advising them of the potential risks and limitations of their authority in intervening in local offenses.

  2/24/1978

• 2/23/1978

  Effect of Flood Disaster Prevention Act on Executive Order 11988

  This document is a legal opinion on the relationship between Executive Order No. 11988 and the Flood Disaster Prevention Act of 1977. The conclusions reached in the document are that the Executive Order applies to federal agencies regulating financial institutions and requires them to minimize harmful results of their activities in flood plains. However, the document also concludes that the Flood Disaster Prevention Act denies the federal government authority to prohibit federally regulated private lenders from making mortgage loans in a flood plain. The questions presented for review include the conflict between the Executive Order and the Act, as well as the intent of Congress in replacing a section of the Act with a new one.

  2/23/1978

• 2/14/1978

  Monitoring Administration of Public Educational Television or Radio Broadcasting Facilities Grants

  This document discusses the issue of administration of existing public educational television or radio broadcasting facilities grants. It raises the question of whether compliance with conditions contained in existing grants should be monitored by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), or some other agency. The conclusion reached is that the agency charged with monitoring the status of grantees, currently HEW, will continue to play a key role in future administration of existing grants. The document also raises the question of whether CPB should assume authority to monitor these grants, as it may jeopardize its nongovernmental status.

  2/14/1978

• 2/9/1978

  Indemnification of Dresden Exhibit by the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities

  This document discusses a dispute over the interpretation of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, specifically regarding the proposed indemnification of a planned East German exhibit called “The Splendor of Dresden.” The main question is whether the Council has the statutory authority to enter into the agreement as it stands, which would only cover a portion of the total value of the exhibit. The conclusion reached in the document is that the Council does have the authority to enter into the proposed indemnification agreement, as it falls within the broad powers granted to the Council under the Act. The proposed agreement is seen as beneficial to all parties involved, with no realistic possibility of loss to any concerned party.

  2/9/1978