|11/14/2018||Designating an Acting Attorney General||
The President’s designation of a senior Department of Justice official to serve as Acting Attorney General was expressly authorized by the Vacancies Reform Act. That act is available to the President even though the Department’s organic statute prescribes an alternative succession mechanism for the office of Attorney General.
The President’s designation of an official who does not hold a Senate-confirmed office to serve, on a temporary basis, as Acting Attorney General was consistent with the Appointments Clause. The designation did not transform the official’s position into a principal office requiring Senate confirmation.
|07/27/2018||The Scope of State Criminal Jurisdiction over Offenses Occurring on the Yakama Indian Reservation||
In partially retroceding the criminal jurisdiction that it had obtained under Public Law 280, the State of Washington retained criminal jurisdiction over an offense on the Yakama Indian Reservation when the defendant or the victim is a non-Indian, as well as when both are non-Indians.
|05/31/2018||April 2018 Airstrikes Against Syrian Chemical-Weapons Facilities||
The President could lawfully direct airstrikes on facilities associated with Syria’s chemical-weapons capability because he had reasonably determined that the use of force would be in the national interest and that the anticipated hostilities would not rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense.
|03/06/2018||Applicability of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act to an Arbitral Award of Legal Costs||
An arbitral award of legal costs does not qualify as a refund for purposes of the “refunds to appropriations” exception to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act. The Millennium Challenge Corporation therefore must deposit the award in the general fund of the Treasury.
|02/07/2018||The Department of Defense’s Authority to Conduct Background Investigations for Its Personnel||
Section 925 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 authorizes the Department of Defense to conduct the background investigations for its personnel currently performed by the National Background Investigations Bureau of the Office of Personnel Management, including investigations to determine whether those personnel may be granted security clearances giving them access to classified information or whether they are eligible to hold sensitive positions.
This statutory reallocation of investigative authority from one part of the Executive Branch to another does not raise constitutional concerns. It does not infringe upon the President’s constitutional role in protecting national security information.
|01/26/2018||Committee Resolutions Under 40 U.S.C. § 3307(a) and the Availability of Enacted Appropriations||
Under 40 U.SC. § 3307(a), committee approval resolutions do not establish binding limits on how the General Services Administration may expend appropriated funds. If Congress appropriates funds for a project that has not received committee approval, section 3307(a) does not constrain what the Executive Branch may do with the funds.
Committee resolutions adopted under section 3307(a) have no effect on the availability of appropriated funds for purposes of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
|11/25/2017||Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection||
The statute providing that the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director” authorizes the Deputy Director to serve as the Acting Director when the position of Director is vacant.
Both the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 and the statute specific to the office of Director are available to fill a vacancy in the office of Director on an acting basis; the office-specific statute does not displace the President’s authority to designate an acting officer under 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(2) or (3).
|10/26/2017||Temporary Certification Under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992||
Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 authorizes the President to issue a temporary certification postponing disclosure of a set of records without articulating record-specific justifications for further postponement of each individual record. The purpose of this postponement would be limited to providing sufficient time to resolve which specific records warrant postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D). There is a strong likelihood that many of the records in question implicate the kinds of sensitivities about national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs contemplated by the statute.
Serious constitutional concerns would arise if the Act were construed to require the President to make premature disclosures of records while they are likely to contain still-sensitive information.
|05/01/2017||Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight of the Executive Branch||
The constitutional authority to conduct oversight—that is, the authority to make official inquiries into and to conduct investigations of executive branch programs and activities—may be exercised only by each house of Congress or, under existing delegations, by committees and subcommittees (or their chairmen).
Individual members of Congress, including ranking minority members, do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of a specific delegation by a full house, committee, or subcommittee. They may request information from the Executive Branch, which may respond at its discretion, but such requests do not trigger any obligation to accommodate congressional needs and are not legally enforceable through a subpoena or contempt proceedings.
|03/13/2017||Appointment of United States Trade Representative||
Were it constitutional, 19 U.S.C. § 2171(b)(4) would prohibit anyone “who has directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity . . . in any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United States” from being appointed as United States Trade Representative. A nominee’s previous work on two matters involving antidumping or countervailing duty proceedings before administrative agencies would not be disqualifying under the statute, because neither matter was a “trade negotiation” or, during the time of his engagement, a “trade dispute with the United States.”