The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice Seal The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 
Opinions by Date and Title
Date Not SortedTitleHeadnotes
1977-May-09

Authority of Drug Enforcement Administration to Control Production of Plant Papaver Bracteatum


(Posted 2014-February-27)

Control of Papaver Bracteatum—Drug Enforcement Administration

1977-December-07

Authority of General Services Administration to Restore Sanctioned Employees to Prior Grades


(Posted 2014-February-27)

General Services Administration—Disciplinary Matter—Authority of the General Services Administration (5 U.S.C. § 5596)

1977-August-18

Authority of Secretary of Agriculture to Establish Price Support Program for Sugar Producers Under the Agriculture Act of 1949


(Posted 2014-February-27)

Price Support for Sugar Producers—Agriculture Act of 1949

1978-March-10

Authority of the Department of Justice to Retain Private Legal Counsel


(Posted 2014-March-12)

Department of Justice—Retention of Private Counsel—Authority—Defense of Federal Officials

1978-September-06

Authority of Water Resources Council to Expend Carried-Over Funds


(Posted 2014-March-12)

Water Resources Council (42 U.S.C. § 1962a)—Authority to Expend Carried-Over Funds

1977-March-22

Basis for Federal Jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., Hostage Situation


(Posted 2014-February-27)

Washington, D.C., Hostage Situation: Basis for Federal Jurisdiction

2003-April-17

Bond Proceeding of Undocumented Aliens Seeking to Enter the United States Illegally


(Posted 2014-February-26)

In determining whether to release on bond undocumented migrants who arrive in the United States by sea seeking to evade inspection, it is appropriate to consider national security interests implicated by the encouragement of further unlawful mass migrations and the release of undocumented alien migrants into the United States without adequate screening.

In bond proceedings involving aliens seeking to enter the United States illegally, where the government offers evidence from sources in the Executive Branch with relevant expertise establishing that significant national security interests are implicated, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals shall consider such interests.

Considering national security grounds applicable to a category of aliens in denying an unadmitted alien’s request for release on bond does not violate any due process right to an individualized determination in bond proceedings under section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

1978-March-08

CIA Investigations of United States Persons in the United States


(Posted 2014-March-12)

Central Intelligence Agency—Investigative Authority—United States Citizens—Weissman v. CIA (565 F.2d 692)

1993-December-20

Clarification of Prior Opinion Regarding Borrowing by Bank Examiners

18 U.S.C. § 213, which prohibits federal bank examiners from borrowing from Federal Reserve member banks or other entities subject to examination by them, does not prohibit such examiners from receiving loans or credit from affiliates of covered banks merely because such affiliates are under “common control” with the bank or because the covered bank and the affiliate have a common majority of corporate officers or directors.

An examiner would be prohibited from borrowing from such an affiliated entity, where the affiliate is serving as a conduit or “front” for the implementation of a loan that is actually extended due to the direction, instigation, or influence of the affiliated member bank or person connected therewith.

2013-August-23

Competitive Bidding Requirements Under the Federal-Aid Highway Program


(Posted 2014-March-13)

The competitive bidding requirement of 23 U.S.C. § 112 imposes, in addition to procedural rules dictating the process by which bids are awarded, a substantive limitation on state or local bidding requirements that are unrelated to the bidder’s performance of the necessary work.

Section 112’s competitive bidding requirement does not preclude any and all state or local bidding or contractual restrictions that have the effect of reducing the pool of potential bidders for reasons unrelated to the performance of the necessary work. Rather, section 112 affords the Federal Highway Administration discretion to assess whether a particular state or local requirement unduly limits competition.

Generally, state or local government requirements that eliminate or disadvantage a class of potential responsible bidders to advance objectives unrelated to the efficient use of federal funds or the integrity of the bidding process are likely to unduly impede competition in contravention of the substantive component of section 112’s competitive bidding requirement.


Updated: April 2014