|Date of Issuance||Title||Headnotes|
|01/23/1989||Constitutionality of Section 7(b)(3) of the Emergency Veterans’ Job Training Act of 1983||
The statute’s exclusion of religious activities from the ambit of activities for which the Veterans’ Administration may fund training does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The statute’s inclusion in the program of institutions that are religiously-affiliated but not pervasively sectarian does not violate the Establishment Clause. The inclusion of pervasively sectarian institutions is also constitutional, so long as the selection of the institution is the result of the genuinely independent and private choice of the veteran.
The Veterans’ Administration may constitutionally prescribe by regulation criteria to distinguish between religious and nonreligious activities.
General considerations that may aid in promulgating regulations to distinguish between religious and nonreligious activities include, at a minimum, (1) whether the activity is also traditionally performed in nonreligious organizations and (2) the degree to which the activity is informed and affected by the religious tenets of the organization.
|02/01/1989||Authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to Indemnify Its Employees||
The Environmental Protection Agency may use funds appropriated to the agency for “Salaries and Expenses” to indemnify its employees for personal liability arising from actions taken within the scope of their official duties.
|02/07/1989||Presidential Action on Joint Resolution Disapproving Pay Raise||
Under the Federal Salary Act of 1987, a pay raise recommended by the President becomes effective as law unless it is disapproved by a joint resolution “agreed to by the Congress” prior to the end of the 30-day period beginning when the President submits his recommendation. The Act thus requires passage of the joint resolution by both Houses of Congress, but not signature by the President, prior to the end of the period.
The Constitution requires that the joint resolution disapproving the pay raise be presented to the President, and he is entitled to the constitutionally prescribed 10-day period to consider it. If the President signs the joint resolution dunng this period, the pay raise is disapproved. If the President vetoes the joint resolution (and the veto is not overridden), the pay raise is effective.
With respect to Article III judges, the President’s approval of the joint resolution after the 30-day period does not offend the Compensation Clause or section 2 of the joint resolution, since as a practical matter no increase in pay would vest m the judges prior to the expiration of the period.
|03/09/1989||Inspector General Authority to Conduct Regulatory Investigations||
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, does not generally vest in the Inspector General of the Department of Labor the authority to conduct investigations pursuant to regulatory statutes administered by the Department of Labor. The Inspector General has an oversight rather than a direct role in investigations conducted pursuant to regulatory statutes: he may investigate the Department’s conduct of regulatory investigations, but may not conduct such investigations himself.
The responsibility to conduct regulatory investigations cannot be delegated by the Secretary to the Inspector General pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Inspector General Act.
The significant investigative authority granted to Inspectors General under the Inspector General Act includes the authority to investigate recipients of federal funds, such as contractors and grantees, to determine if they are complying with federal laws and regulations and the authority to investigate the policies and actions of the Departments and their employees. This latter authority includes the authority to exercise “oversight” over the investigations that are integral to the programs of the Department.
|03/13/1989||Issuance of Passports to Aliens to Facilitate “Sting” Operation by State Department Inspector General||
The Department of State has authority to issue passports to aliens for the purpose of facilitating a “sting” operation conducted by the Department of State Inspector General.
|03/16/1989||Whether the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices Is Empowered to Challenge the Constitutionality of State Statutes||
The statutory exemption for “discrimination . . . otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order” excludes from the scope of the Office of Special Counsel’s jurisdiction all discriminatory activity based on state law.
|03/24/1989||Congressional Requests for Information From Inspectors General Concerning Open Criminal Investigations||
Long-established executive branch policy and practice, based on consideration of both Congress’ oversight authority and principles of executive privilege, require that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances an Inspector General must decline to provide confidential information about an open criminal investigation in response to a request pursuant to Congress’ oversight authority.
The reporting provisions of the Inspector General Act do not require Inspectors General to disseminate to Congress confidential information pertaining to open criminal investigations.
|03/24/1989||Cost of Living Allowances for Employees on Pay Retention||
The Office of Personnel Management is required by its own regulations to base cost-of-living allowances for employees receiving retained pay on their higher retained rate of pay, rather than on the maximum rate of the grade.
|04/04/1989||Use of the National Guard to Support Drug Interdiction Efforts in the District of Columbia||
Use of the District of Columbia National Guard, in its militia status, to support local drug law enforcement efforts is not prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The activity may receive funding from the Secretary of Defense under section 1105 of the Defense Authorization Act if the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the District of Columbia National Guard, requests such financial assistance.
Executive Order 11485 assigns the Attorney General the responsibility of establishing, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the law enforcement policies to be observed by the National Guard in these circumstances, but it does not assign the Attorney General any responsibility with respect to the policy decision of whether the National Guard should be assigned to the described use or any supervision and control responsibility for the implementation of such a decision.
|04/14/1989||Availability of Judgment Fund in Cases Not Involving a Money Judgment Claim||
The Judgment Fund is not available for suits that do not seek to require the government to make direct payments of money to individuals, but merely would require the government to take actions that result in the expenditure of government funds.
The Judgment Fund is available: (1) for the payment of final “money judgments” (but not for “non-money judgments”) whose payment is not “otherwise provided for”; (2) for the payment of tort settlements covered by statutory provisions listed in 31 U.S.C. § 1304(a); and (3) for the payment of non-tort settlements authorized by the Attorney General or his designee, whose payment is not “otherwise provided for,” if and only if the cause of action that gave rise to the settlement could have resulted in a final money judgment.