|Date of Issuance||Title||Headnotes|
|05/31/1994||Prejudgment Interest Under the Back Pay Act for Refunds of Federal Insurance Contributions Act Overpayments||
The Back Pay Act’s authorization of prejudgment interest does not apply to the return of a Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax overpayment.
Even if the Back Pay Act did apply to such returns, an agency’s specific exemption from liability under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act would override the provisions of the Back Pay Act.
|05/25/1994||Deputization of Members of Congress as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals||
The deputization of Members of Congress as special Deputy U.S. Marshals is inconsistent with separation of powers principles and with the statutory language and historical practice governing special deputation.
|05/23/1994||Reconsideration of Applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to the Veterans Administration’s Lease of Medical Facilities||
Contrary to the view expressed in an earlier opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, the plain language of the Davis-Bacon Act does not bar its application to a lease contract on the ground that such contracts are per se not contracts for construction. The applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to any specific lease contract can be determined only by considering the details of the particular contract.
|05/17/1994||Authority of Department of Housing and Urban Development to Initiate Enforcement Actions Under the Fair Housing Act Against Other Executive Branch Agencies||
Because substantial separation of powers concerns would be raised by construing the Fair Housing Act to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development to initiate enforcement proceedings against other executive branch agencies, the Act cannot be so construed unless it contains an express statement that Congress intended HUD to have such authority. Because the Act does not contain such an express statement, it does not grant HUD this authority.
There is no basis for construing the Act so that the HUD investigative and administrative process under the Act may be deemed applicable, but the judicial enforcement procedures deemed inapplicable.
|05/10/1994||Eligibility of Involuntary Wartime Relocatees to Japan for Redress Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988||
The proposed Department of Justice change in its interpretation of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to extend redress under the Act to minors who accompanied their parents to Japan during World War II and to adults who are able to show that their relocation to Japan during that period was involuntary is a reasonable and permissible interpretation of the statute.
Although an agency interpretation that has been modified or reversed is likely to receive less deference by a reviewing court than a consistent and contemporaneous interpretation, the fact of modification does not preclude the court from granting deference to the new interpretation.