|2009-June-11||Withdrawal of Office of Legal Counsel Opinion|
|One previous opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel concerning interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency is withdrawn and no longer represents the views of the Office.|
|2009-April-15||Withdrawal of Office of Legal Counsel CIA Interrogation Opinions|
|Four previous opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel concerning interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency are withdrawn and no longer represent the views of the Office.|
|1941-June-08||Wiretapping by Members of the Naval Intelligence Service|
In this letter, Attorney General Jackson advises the Secretary of the Navy not to approve and adopt the position taken by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy that records may legally be made of private communications sent or received by use of telephone facilities controlled by the Navy, with a view to the use of such records in prosecutions involving espionage, sabotage, and subversive activities.
|1998-May-20||Whistleblower Protections for Classified Disclosures|
A Senate bill addressing the disclosure to Congress of classified “whistleblower” information concerning the intelligence community is unconstitutional because it would deprive the President of the opportunity to determine how, when and under what circumstances certain classified information should be disclosed to Members of Congress.
A House bill addressing the same subject is constitutional because it contains provisions that allow for the exercise of the President's constitutional authority.
|1994-November-22||Whether Uruguay Round Agreements Required Ratification as a Treaty||The Uruguay Round Agreements concluded under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade did not require ratification by the Senate as a treaty, but could constitutionally be executed by the President and approved and implemented by Act of Congress.|
|2012-November-16||Whether the United States Department of Labor Has the Authority to Control the Disclosure of Federal Employee Compensation Act Records Held by the United States Postal Service|
The Federal Employee Compensation Act gives the Department of Labor the authority to control and limit the disclosure of FECA records held by the United States Postal Service, and DOL's FECA regulations prohibit USPS from disclosing FECA records in a manner inconsistent with DOL's Privacy Act routine uses.
The Labor Department's regulatory regime for FECA records is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the Privacy Act.
Neither the Postal Reorganization Act nor the National Labor Relations Act authorizes USPS to control the disclosure of FECA records.
|2010-November-05||Whether the Special Master for Troubled Asset Relief Program Executive Compensation Is a Principal Officer Under the Appointments Clause|
|The Special Master for Troubled Asset Relief Program Executive Compensation is not a principal officer for purposes of the Appointments Clause and thus need not be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.|
|2004-August-24||Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right||The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.|
|2000-December-22||Whether the President May Have Access to Grand Jury Material in the Course of Exercising His Discretion to Grant Pardons|
The President, in the exercise of his pardon authority and responsibilities under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, may request that the pardon attorney include grand jury information in any recommendation he may make in connection with a pardon application if the President determines that his need for such information in considering that application outweighs the confidentiality interests embodied in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.The prohibition in Rule 6(e) cannot constitutionally be applied to prevent the President from obtaining grand jury information already in the possession of the Executive Branch when the President determines that, for purposes of making a clemency decision, his need for that information outweighs the confidentiality interests embodied in Rule 6(e).
|1994-February-14||Whether the Office of the Vice President Is an “Agency” for Purposes of the Freedom of Information Act||The Office of the Vice President is not an “agency” for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. |