The OLC's Opinions
Opinions published by the OLC, including those released in response to our FOIA lawsuit
This Reading Room is a comprehensive database of published opinions written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It contains the approximately 1,400 opinions published by the OLC in its online database and the opinions produced in Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the Knight Institute, including opinions about the Pentagon Papers, the Civil Rights Era, and the War Powers Act. It also contains indexes of unclassified OLC opinions written between 1945 and February 15, 1994 (these indexes were created by the OLC and intended to be comprehensive). We have compiled those indexes into a single list here and in .csv format here. This Reading Room also contains an index of all classified OLC opinions issued between 1974 and 2021, except those classified or codeword-classified at a level higher than Top Secret (the OLC created this index, too, and intended it to be comprehensive).
Some opinion descriptions were drafted by the OLC, some were prepared by Knight First Amendment Institute staff, and some were generated using AI tools.
The Knight Institute will continue updating the reading room with new records. To get alerts when the OLC publishes a new opinion in its database, follow @OLCforthepeople on Twitter.
Showing 1601–1610 of 2214
-
NSA Criminal Referrals Under E.O. 11905
In this memo, the OLC clarified the oral guidance Bill Funk gave to the NSA regarding the NSA’s reporting requirements under § 4(a)(4) of E.O. 119905. The OLC concluded that even though Mr. Frunk did not define the meaning of “routine” offenses, such offenses included the admissions of limited personal use of marijuana or other controlled substances by NSA employment applicants or personas who were undergoing pre-clearance investigations.
9/2/2022
-
Effect of the Freedom of Information Act on the Intelligence Oversight Board
This opinion concluded that the Intelligence Overisght Board was likely subject to neither FOIA nor the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The OLC added that even if the Board was nominally subject to those requirements, the exemptions found in both laws would allow the IOB to continue conducting business confidentially.
9/2/2022
-
Acceptance of Cash Prize by a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Examiner
The document discusses whether a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) examiner can accept a cash prize from a grocery store affiliated with a bank examined by the official. The examiner won a prize of $1,000 through a random drawing at the grocery store. The conclusion reached is that, based on the facts presented, there is no legal objection to the bank examiner accepting the cash prize. The document also raises the question of whether the cash prize should be considered a "gratuity" within the meaning of the law, and whether the statute should be interpreted expansively to cover the situation presented.
11/17/1977
-
Participation of Antitrust Division Attorney in "Armored Car" Cases
The document is a memorandum opinion regarding the participation of an attorney in the Antitrust Division in "Armored Car" cases. The conclusion reached in the document is that there would be no actual or apparent impropriety involved in the attorney's participation in the cases. The document presents questions for review regarding the attorney's prior association with a law firm that was previously general counsel for Wells Fargo, and whether this association would create a conflict of interest in the attorney's participation in the armored car cases. It also discusses the standards of the American Bar Association (ABA) Code of Professional Responsibility and whether the attorney's limited inquiries to the Division would disqualify him from participating in the cases.
11/10/1977
-
Immigration Status of Persons Employed by Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities of the United States
The document discusses the immigration status of certain persons employed by nonappropriated fund instrumentalities (NAFI) of the United States abroad. The main question is whether these employees are eligible for classification as "special immigrants" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The conclusion reached in the document is that NAFI employees are eligible for classification as "special immigrants" under the Act if they satisfy the statutory requirements respecting years of service, recommendation, and approval. The document also presents a review of the legislative history and judicial decisions that support the view that NAFI employees should be regarded as employees of the United States unless a Federal statute provides otherwise.
11/3/1977
-
Richard Helms' Eligibility Under 5 U.S.C. § 8314 to Receive an Annuity or Retired Pay
The document is a memorandum opinion regarding Richard Helms' eligibility to receive an annuity or retired pay under 5 U.S.C. § 8314. The conclusion reached in the document is that Helms will not be barred from receiving an annuity or retired pay based on his plea of nolo contendere to two counts of violating 2 U.S.C. §192 in connection with appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The document presents questions for review regarding the interpretation of the eligibility criteria under 5 U.S.C. § 8314, specifically whether the refusal to testify at the committee hearings relates to loyalty or poses a serious threat to national security. The document also discusses the legislative history of the section and the narrow construction of penal statutes.
11/3/1977
-
Basis for Executive Branch Authority to Classify Information
In this memo, the OLC provided a list of constitutional and related statutory bases under which the Executive Branch was authorized to establish a system for the classification of information.
9/2/2022
-
Constitutionality of Extending the Time Period for Ratification of the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment
This opinion examines whether the Congressional proposal to extend the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It concludes that no authority suggests persuasively that a deadline extension, in the form of a concurrent resolution subject to simple majority in both houses of Congress, would be unconstitutional. In addition, the opinion finds that neither the state legislature nor Congress can permit the states to rescind their ratification of the ERA during the proposed extension. 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/1242666/download.
10/31/1977
-
Presentation of Enrolled Bills When the President Is Abroad
This document discusses the procedures and issues related to the presentation and signing of bills by the President when they are abroad. It outlines the constitutional requirements for presenting bills to the President and the potential challenges that arise when the President is outside the United States. The document also presents historical examples of how previous Presidents have handled this situation, including agreements with Congress and the use of specific procedures for handling bills received while the President is abroad. The document raises questions about the timing of presenting bills, the need for clear communication between the President and Congress, and the potential impact of time zone differences on the 10-day period for Presidential consideration.
10/25/1977
-
President's Authority To Promulgate a Reorganization Plan Involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The document discusses the President's authority to promulgate a reorganization plan involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It concludes that EEOC is an executive branch agency and can be subject to the President's authority under the Reorganization Act of 1977. The document also addresses the transfer of functions from the Department of Labor to EEOC, stating that certain conditions and limitations must be met for such a transfer to take place. The questions presented for review include whether EEOC is an executive branch agency and whether a reorganization plan can vest in EEOC functions currently held by the Department of Labor.
10/20/1977