Opinions
Constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009
The constitutionality of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 presents a close question, but the balance tips in favor of finding the Act constitutional.
Neither the text of the Constitution nor the analysis of applicable precedent clearly resolves the question of whether Congress may confer House voting rights on D.C. residents by legislation.
In the absence of a clear constitutional prohibition, the Constitution does not require denying the most basic rights in a democracy—the right to elect representation in the legislature and therefore to self-governance—to U.S. citizens who happen to be residents of the District of Columbia.
Views on Legislation Making the District of Columbia a Congressional District
The District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009 is unconstitutional.
Congress may not by statute give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House.
The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Composition Clause, which governs the membership of the House of Representatives.
The District Clause gives Congress broad power to legislate for the District, but it does not permit Congress to override the prescriptions of the Composition Clause.
Authority of Acting FBI Officials to Sign National Security Letters
Under the statutes authorizing the FBI to issue national security letters, the Director of the FBI may designate Acting Deputy Assistant Directors and Acting Special Agents in Charge to sign national security letters.
Status of Certain Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
Certain propositions stated in several opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2001–2003 respecting the allocation of authorities between the President and Congress in matters of war and national security do not reflect the current views of this Office.
Status of Presidential Memorandum on Use of the Polygraph in the Executive Branch
An undated four-page memorandum from President Lyndon Johnson entitled "Use of the Polygraph in the Executive Branch" and addressed to the heads of Executive Branch departments and agencies, which was neither issued as a directive to the Executive Branch nor understood contemporaneously to have legal effect, does not now bind the Department of Justice or other entities within the Executive Branch.
Use of the EINSTEIN 2.0 Intrusion-Detection System to Protect Unclassified Computer Networks in the Executive Branch
An intrusion-detection system known as EINSTEIN 2.0 used to protect civilian unclassified networks in the Executive Branch against malicious network activity complies with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Wiretap Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the pen-register and trap-and-trace provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3121 et seq., provided that certain log-on banners or computer-user agreements are consistently adopted, implemented, and enforced by executive departments and agencies using the system.
Assistance of Counsel in Removal Proceedings (I)
The Constitution does not confer a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings, because the alien has no constitutional right to counsel, including government-appointed counsel, in the first place.
Although the Constitution does not entitle an alien to relief for his lawyer’s mistakes, the Department may, in its discretion, allow an alien to reopen removal proceedings based on the deficient performance of his lawyer.
In extraordinary cases, where a lawyer’s deficient performance likely changed the outcome of an alien’s removal proceedings, the Board may reopen removal proceedings notwithstanding the absence of a constitutional right to such relief.