|2008-June-19||Assertion of Executive Privilege Over Communications Regarding EPA's Ozone Air Quality Standards and California's Greenhouse Gas Waiver Request|
|The President may lawfully assert executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas seeking communications within the Executive Office of the President or between the Environmental Protection Agency and the EOP concerning EPA's promulgation of a regulation revising national ambient air quality standards for ozone or EPA's decision to deny a petition by California for a waiver from federal preemption to enable it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.|
|2004-January-12||Assertion of Constitutionally Based Privilege Over Reagan Administration Records |
|It is legally permissible for President Bush to assert constitutionally based privilege in concurrence with former President Reagan’s assertion of constitutionally based privilege over certain Reagan Administration documents that are otherwise required to be released by the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. |
|2001-December-10||Assertion of Executive Privilege With Respect to Prosecutorial Documents||Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking prosecutorial decisionmaking documents of the Department of Justice.|
|1996-September-20||Assertion of Executive Privilege for Documents Concerning Conduct of Foreign Affairs With Respect to Haiti||Executive privilege may properly be asserted with respect to certain documents subpoenaed by the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives that concern the Administration's conduct of foreign affairs with respect to Haiti.|
|1996-September-30||Assertion of Executive Privilege for Memorandum to the President Concerning Efforts to Combat Drug Trafficking||Executive privilege may properly be asserted with respect to a memorandum to the President from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration containing confidential advice and recommendations regarding efforts to combat drug trafficking. The memorandum was subpoenaed by the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives.|
|1996-May-23||Assertion of Executive Privilege Regarding White House Counsel's Office Documents||Executive privilege may properly be asserted with respect to certain White House Counsel's Office documents that have been subpoenaed by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives in connection with the Committee's investigation of the White House Travel Office matter.|
|1999-September-16||Assertion of Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision|
Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking documents and testimony concerning the deliberations in connection with President's decision to offer clemency to sixteen individuals.
Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking testimony by the Counsel to the President concerning the performance of official duties on the basis that the Counsel serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony.
|1956-January-04||Assertion of Executive Privilege by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission|
Questions put to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission regarding conversations he may have had with the President or his assistants in the White House come within the scope of the executive privilege, whereby information, papers, and communications which the President or the heads of the executive departments or agencies deem confidential in the public interest need not be disclosed to a congressional committee. In addition, the questions are within the scope of the President’s letter of May 17, 1954 to the Secretary of Defense setting forth the Administration’s policy that, in the public interest, advisement on official matters between employees of the Executive Branch of the government be kept confidential, and any conversations, communications, documents or reproductions concerning such advisement not be disclosed in congressional hearings.
Even if it were conceded only for the purpose of argument that the Atomic Energy Commission is a typical independent regulatory commission, which is not in one branch of the government to the exclusion of others but straddles at least two branches so as to be part of each, there is historical precedent indicating that, as to the executive functions of such a commission, its officers and employees have a right, and, when directed by the President, a duty to invoke the executive privilege.
The so-called fraud exception to executive privilege does not exist. The precedent for the so-called exception really evidences the unlimited discretion of the President to determine whether the public interest requires that the executive privilege be invoked or waived in a particular case.
|2012-June-19||Assertion of Executive Privilege Over Documents Generated in Response to Congressional Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious|
|Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking internal Department of Justice documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department's response to congressional and related media inquiries into Operation Fast and Furious.|
|2005-July-28||Assignment of Certain Functions Related to Military Appointments|
Section 531(a)(1) of title 10 does not affirmatively prohibit delegation to the Secretary of Defense of the President's appointment authority.
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from allowing the President to choose between making such an appointment himself and delegating it to the Secretary of Defense.
So long as each nomination is submitted to the Secretary of Defense for approval (whether individually or in groups) and each appointment is made in the name of the Secretary of Defense (whether the document evidencing the appointment be signed by the Secretary or an authorized subordinate officer), the Constitution would permit functions related to the appointment process to be delegated to a subordinate officer below the Secretary of Defense.