- 2024 (3)
- 2023 (2)
- 2022 (11)
- 2021 (15)
- 2020 (8)
- 2019 (17)
- 2018 (10)
- 2017 (8)
- 2016 (7)
- 2015 (3)
- 2014 (5)
- 2013 (6)
- 2012 (14)
- 2011 (12)
- 2010 (16)
- 2009 (27)
- 2008 (18)
- 2007 (22)
- 2006 (9)
- 2005 (17)
- 2004 (23)
- 2003 (20)
- 2002 (22)
- 2001 (35)
- 2000 (30)
- 1999 (26)
- 1998 (32)
- 1997 (29)
- 1996 (48)
- 1995 (30)
- 1994 (29)
- 1993 (23)
- 1992 (15)
- 1991 (13)
- 1990 (23)
- 1989 (50)
- 1988 (31)
- 1987 (19)
- 1986 (22)
- 1985 (18)
- 1984 (25)
- 1983 (28)
- 1982 (79)
- 1981 (71)
- 1980 (98)
- 1979 (97)
- 1978 (79)
- 1977 (93)
- 1976 (3)
- 1975 (1)
- 1974 (3)
- 1973 (1)
- 1972 (2)
- 1971 (1)
- 1970 (4)
- 1969 (2)
- 1967 (1)
- 1964 (1)
- 1963 (2)
- 1962 (3)
- 1961 (6)
- 1958 (1)
- 1957 (1)
- 1956 (2)
- 1955 (1)
- 1953 (2)
- 1952 (2)
- 1950 (1)
- 1947 (3)
- 1946 (1)
- 1945 (2)
- 1943 (1)
- 1942 (4)
- 1941 (2)
- 1939 (2)
- 1938 (1)
- 1937 (4)
- 1936 (1)
- 1935 (1)
- 1934 (4)
Opinions
Appropriate Source for Payment of Judgments and Settlements in United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Resolution Fund is the appropriate source of payment for judgments against, and settlements by, the United States in United States v Winstar Corp. and similar cases arising from the breach of certain agreements to which the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation was a party.
Waiver of Statutes of Limitations in Connection With Claims Against the Department of Agriculture
The Supreme Court’s decision in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs made no alteration in the fundamental rules governing waivers of sovereign immunity in a ctions against the United States. Irwin and the cases following it therefore provide no support for the novel conclusion that the executive branch has the discretion to dispense with a congressionally mandated statute of limitations in litigation or the compromise of claims. Unless Congress provides to the contrary, adherence to the relevant statute of limitations remains a strict and non-waivable condition on suits against the federal government.
Enactment of legislation authorizing the payment of claims barred by the statute of limitation s under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is the necessary and constitutionally appropriate means of satisfying such claims.
Access to Criminal History Records by Non-Governmental Entities Performing Authorized Criminal Justice Functions
Non-govemmental entities performing authorized criminal justice functions under contract with government law enforcement agencies may be granted access to criminal history records maintained under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 534, subject to effective controls to guard against unauthorized use and to ensure effective oversight by the Department of Justice.
Because Department of Justice regulations implementing 28 U.S C. § 534 do not affirmatively authorize dissemination of criminal history records to non-govemmental entities under contract to assist law enforcement agencies, those regulations should be amended to provide such authorization before access is granted to those entities.
Appointment of Vice Chair of Federal Reserve Board to Serve Concurrently as Chair of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board may also serve as Chair of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority without violating sections 205 or 208 of title 18. Her dual service would also have to comply with the Federal Reserve Act’s “entire-time” requirement.
Permissibility Under Posse Comitatus Act of Detail of Defense Department Civilian Employee to the National Infrastructure Protection Center
The proposed detail of a civilian employee of the Department of Defense to the National Infrastructure Protection Center, a component of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is permissible under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Whistleblower Protections for Classified Disclosures
A Senate bill addressing the disclosure to Congress of classified “whistleblower” information concerning the intelligence community is unconstitutional because it would deprive the President of the opportunity to determine how, when and under what circumstances certain classified information should be disclosed to Members of Congress.
A House bill addressing the same subject is constitutional because it contains provisions that allow for the exercise of the President’s constitutional authority.
Constitutionality of Proposed Limitations on Tobacco Industry
Congress has the authority under the Constitution to impose significant new regulations on tobacco companies, including (1) restrictions on advertising and marketing of tobacco products that are tailored to prevent access to advertising by minors; (2) contingent monetary exactions, to be collected from tobacco companies if tobacco use by minors fails to meet prescribed targets; and (3) requirements that companies disclose certain documents to the public and to federal regulators.
Consent by the tobacco companies to increased federal regulation, which those companies might grant in order to qualify for federally prescribed limits on liability, would permit Congress to establish additional restrictions on tobacco advertising that it could not impose directly.restrictions on tobacco advertising that it could not impose directly.
Authority of Executive Office of the President to Require Independent Agencies to Conduct Background Checks of Noncareer SES Candidates
No office or agency within the Executive Office of the President may require independent agencies to conduct certain background checks of candidates for noncareer Senior Executive Service positions.
Coverage Issues Under the Indian Self-Determination Act
The 1990 amendment to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 covers only those torts for which the Federal Tort Claims Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.
The 1990 amendment does not authorize or otherwise address representation of tribes or tribal employees who are sued in their individual capacities for constitutional torts.
Possible Bases of Jurisdiction for the Department of Justice to Investigate Matters Relating to the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Department of Justice may conduct an investigation relating to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., to investigate the commission of federal crimes for which the applicable statute of limitations has run, in order to establish the facts of the crime, independent of whether such facts may lead to a prosecution.
The Department also has authority, under 28 U.S.C. § 533(3), to investigate the role of the Department or the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the original investigation of the King assassination. Such an investigation under § 533(3) could include a re-investigation of the facts surrounding the assassination itself in order to assess the conduct of the Bureau’s original investigation and determine the accuracy and completeness of its findings.