|Date of Issuance||Title||Headnotes|
|04/19/1994||Equitable Transfers of Forfeited Monies or Property||
When the federal government makes an equitable transfer of forfeited monies or property to a state or local law enforcement agency, that transfer is more appropriately characterized as a conditional gift to the agency rather than as a formal contract between the federal government and the agency.
If the state or local agency fails to use the transferred property for law enforcement purposes, the federal government may be able to pursue restitution of the property.
|04/19/1994||MARAD Rulemaking Authority Under Cargo Preference Laws||
The U.S. Maritime Administration has the authority to promulgate rules establishing mandatory uniform charter terms for the carriage of cargoes subject to the Cargo Preference Act of 1954.
|04/18/1994||Authority of USDA to Award Monetary Relief for Discrimination||
The Department of Agriculture has authority to award monetary relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs to a person who has been discriminated against in a program conducted by USDA if a court could award such relief in an action by the aggrieved person. That question is controlled by whether the anti-discrimination provisions of the applicable civil rights statute apply to federal agencies, and if so, whether the statute waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against imposition of such relief.
The anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not apply to federal agencies. Some anti-discrimination provisions in each of the other civil rights statutes addressed in the opinion do apply to federal agencies, but only one of the statutes, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, waives sovereign immunity with respect to monetary relief, authorizing imposition of compensatory damages. The Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act do not waive immunity against monetary relief. Attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded pursuant to the waiver of immunity contained in the Equal Access to Justice Act.
|04/15/1994||Sixth Amendment Implications of Law Enforcement Contact with Corporate Executives||
Law enforcement contacts with high-ranking executives of a corporation without the presence of counsel after criminal charges have been filed against the corporation violate the corporation’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
No Sixth Amendment violation occurs when such law enforcement contacts with high-ranking executives occur while civil penalty proceedings are in progress against the corporation.
|04/05/1994||Whether Members of the Sentencing Commission Who Were Appointed Prior to the Enactment of a Holdover Statute May Exercise Holdover Rights Pursuant to the Statute||
Statutory provisions that allow members of the United States Sentencing Commission to holdover in office after their terms have expired apply to incumbent members who were appointed prior to the enactment of the holdover statute.
Commissioners who were appointed prior to the enactment of the holdover statute may constitutionally exercise such holdover rights without violating the Appointments Clause.