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

Applicability of the Antideficiency Act to a Violation of a Condition or Internal Cap Within an Appropriation

Any expenditure of funds in violation of a condition or internal cap in an appropriations act would generally constitute a violation of the Antideficiency Act.


Applicability of the Antideficiency Act to the Peace Corps

Budget Authority—Statutory Construction—Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 665)—Applicability to the Directors of the Peace Corps and ACTION


Applicability of the Antideficiency Act Upon a Lapse in an Agency’s Appropriation

If, after the expiration of an agency’s appropriation, Congress has not enacted an appropriation for the immediately subsequent period, the agency may obligate no further funds except as necessary to bring about the orderly termination of its functions, and the obligation or expenditure of funds for any purpose not otherwise authorized by law would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act.

The manifest purpose of the Antideficiency Act is to insure that Congress will determine for what purpose the government’s money is to be spent and how much for each purpose.

Because no statute generally permits federal agencies to incur obligations without appropriations for the pay of employees, agencies are not, in general, authorized to employ the services of their employees upon a lapse in appropriations.


Applicability of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 to Buildings Financed with Federal Funds

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 applies only where federal grants or loans are used to finance the design, construction, or alteration of a building, and does not apply where a building is merely leased with federal funds.

While the text and legislative history of the 1968 Act are ambiguous as to whether its applicability depends on actual issuance of standards for design, construction, or alteration, both subsequent amendments to the Act and consistent administrative interpretation—support the conclusion that the Act applies if such standards are authorized under the law authorizing the grant or loan, even if they have not been issued.


Applicability of the California Penal Code to Investigations Conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

A federal law enforcement officer who must violate state criminal law in the course of performing his official duty is immune from criminal prosecution and civil liability stemming from such a violation.

An informer may claim immunity from civil liability under state law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, and it would be unwise to base an informer’s defense on sovereign immunity, given the potential for government liability if the informer’s actions were to be characterized as those of a government employee.


Applicability of the Cargo Preference Act to the Transportation of Alaskan Oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Shipments of Alaskan oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, made on commercial United States-flag ships as required by the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 883, may be counted by the Department of Energy towards the 50% United States-flag cargo preference share required by the Cargo Preference Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1241(b).

The Cargo Preference Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1241(b), applies to both foreign and domestic cargoes procured by the United States, and is not limited to commerce in which United States-flag vessels face foreign competition. In addition, the Act is an “otherwise applicable Federal procurement statute” that may be waived by the Secretary of Energy under § 804(b) of the Energy Security Act, 10 U.S.C. § 7340(k).


Applicability of the Civil Service Provisions of Title 5 of the United States Code to the United States Enrichment Corporation

The United States Enrichment Corporation is exempt from the civil service provisions of title 5 of the United States Code.


Applicability of the Compact Clause to Use of Multiple State Entities Under the Water Resources Planning Act

Agreements between the federal government and a state are not subject to congressional consent under the Compact Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10, cl. 3; nor are all agreements between or among states so subject, but only those which encroach upon or interfere with the authority of the federal government.

States may engage cooperatively in a broad range of planning activities under the Water Resources Planning Act without obtaining congressional consent, so long as they impose no legal obligation or disability on governmental or private parties.

Congress has given advance consent to planning activities of the statutory river basin commissions, but not to those of interagency committees or multiple state entities.


Applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to the Veterans Administration’s Lease of Medical Facilities

The Attorney General has authority to review legal determinations made by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act.

A lease of a privately owned facility is not a “contract for construction of a public building” within the meaning of the Davis-Bacon Act. The mere fact that a lessor undertakes construction in order to fulfill its obligations is insufficient to convert a lease into such a contract.


Applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause to Successive Prosecutions by the United States and the District of Columbia

District of Columbia—Applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

Updated: April 2014