Opinions
Application of the Privacy Act to the Personnel Records of Employees in the Copyright Office
The Copyright Office is in the legislative branch, and is not an “agency” within the coverage of the Privacy Act.
It is constitutionally permissible for an officer of the legislative branch, such as the Register of Copyrights, to perform executive functions, as long as the officer is appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause.
The personnel records of the Copyright Office are not subject to the Privacy Act by virtue of 17 U.S.C. § 701(d), because personnel actions taken by the Register of Copyrights are an incident of the personnel administration of the Library of Congress.
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.
Severance Agreement Between a Prospective Federal Appointee and His Law Firm
Severance arrangements between a prospective appointee to federal office and his law firm do not result in an unlawful supplementation of his federal salary in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209, notwithstanding the fact that they deviate in certain respects from the terms of the law firm’s partnership agreement.
Part-Time Government Official’s Receipt of Compensation for Representational Work Before the Government
As a special government employee, part-time Commissioner of Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is barred by 18 U.S.C. § 203 from representing anyone before a component of the Justice Department for compensation.
Part-time government official who is not a partner of his law firm may continue to receive compensation from his firm which is attributable to representational work before the Justice Department.
Part-time government official’s law firm may represent clients before any component of the Justice Department except the Commission.
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.
Authority of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Board to Issue Guarantees
The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Board has the authority, under § 4(a) of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1863(a), to issue loan guarantees even though Congress has not appropriated funds in advance to make payments under the guarantees in the event of a default.
The Attorney General concurs in the Comptroller General’s opinion (Comp. Op. File B-197380 (April 10, 1980)) that the Board has the authority until December 31, 1983, to issue loan guarantees in the amount up to $1.5 billion of contingent liability for loan principal outstanding at any one time and additional amounts for loan interest.
Litigation Responsibility of the Attorney General in Cases in the International Court of Justice
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519, the conduct and supervision of litigation in which the United States is a party is reserved to the Attorney General, except as otherwise authorized by law; under 5 U.S.C § 3106, other agencies shall not conduct litigation, but shall refer the matter to the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General’s authority and responsibility to conduct litigation extends to litigation in foreign and international tribunals, including litigation affecting foreign relations of the United States, and contentious litigated proceedings before the International Court of Justice are thus within his supervisory power.
Ethical Restraints of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility on Federal Criminal Investigations
American Bar Association Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (DR 7-104), which prohibits an attorney from contacting an opposing party without prior consent from the party’s attorney, does not apply to federal criminal investigations or to interrogations by FBI agents; accordingly, the Department of Justice is free to analyze the issues presented by DR 7-104 as policy questions.
The only restraints on federal law enforcement activities are those established by the Constitution and existing statutes; moreover, authorized federal investigative practices are exempt from DR 7-104 by its own terms.
Courts have taken the position generally that DR 7-104 applies to all situations in which a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, though they have been reluctant to fetter legitimate and traditional activities of law enforcement officials in the investigative stages of a case; moreover, courts have generally held that waiver of one’s constitutional right to counsel does not negate the ethical obligation of a government attorney to seek the consent of an opposing party’s attorney before initiating communications with the party.
Federal courts have no power to exclude evidence, dismiss an indictment, or reverse a conviction solely on the ground that DR 7-104 was violated.
State bar associations may not, consistent with the Supremacy Clause, impose sanctions on a government attorney who has acted pursuant to his federal law enforcement responsibilities.
Legality of Certain Nonmilitary Actions Against Iran
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President may impose an embargo on all imports from Iran and, subject to certain conditions, a prohibition on exports of food and medicine to Iran. The IEEPA also authorizes him to order the closure of Iranian business offices located in the United States.
While the President may have some statutory and constitutional power to control third party transactions with Iran, particularly those designed to circumvent the impact of sanctions imposed by the United States directly on Iran, his authority to impose a general secondary boycott against those trading with Iran may be limited. It is thus not clear whether, under existing laws and treaties, airlines and shipping companies that serve Iran may be denied landing rights and fuel purchases in the United States.
Presidential action to block international satellite communications from Iran to the United States is clearly authorized only insofar as it is part of a more general ban on transactions with Iran and its nationals.
The President’s authority to impose a ban on travel by American citizens to Iran may have a more limited applicability to journalists. See United Slates v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). Moreover, restrictions on travel to Iran would have no immediate effect on persons already in that country. However, the IEEPA could be used to impose a broad ban on financial transactions between Americans overseas and Iran or its nationals. The IEEPA would authorize a broad prohibition against all transactions between Americans relating to Iran, as long as Iran has even an indirect interest in the transaction; however, it is not possible under the IEEPA to reach “purely domestic” transactions.
Assertion of Jurisdiction by the United States Over Foreign Vessels Seized Pursuant to a Special Arrangement
The United States may structure a Special Arrangement so as to enable it to assert jurisdiction over a vessel seized on behalf of a foreign state, once the foreign state waives its jurisdiction.
Once the United States asserts jurisdiction over a seized vessel, it must comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.