U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel: Consisting of Selected Memorandum Opinions Advising the President of the United States, the Attorney General and Other Executive Officers of the Federal Government in Relation to Their Official Duties, Volume 11, 1987

NCJ Number
141885
Date Published
1987
Length
183 pages
Annotation
This report presents 19 selected memorandum opinions of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued in 1987 regarding the official duties of Federal executive officers, including the President and the Attorney General.
Abstract
An opinion pertinent to criminal justice involves proposed legislation to establish the National Indian Gaming Commission within the Department of the Interior to regulate gambling on Indian reservations. The legislation would give the commission the power, inter alia, to impose civil fines. This gives rise to several constitutional issues. The extent to which Congress may restrict the removal of subordinate executive officers such as the members of the Indian Gaming Commission is unclear, but such restrictions should be avoided. Also, consistent with the Appointments Clause, the authority to waive a Federal statute should be subject to the approval of a principal officer, such as the Secretary of the Interior. Under the Due Process Clause, civil penalties imposed by members of the Indian Gaming Commission should be imposed by an unbiased administrative judge rather than an interested official. Another opinion related to criminal justice involves the reappointment of United States Parole Commissioners. This opinion addresses whether or not the terms of the U.S. Parole Commissioners on duty as of November 1, 1987, will automatically be extended for a 5- year period without the necessity of new presidential appointments. The opinion holds that a statute that provides for the automatic extension of the term of a presidential appointee unconstitutionally interferes with the President's authority under the Appointments Clause.