Search Documents and Resources

    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
Project On Government Oversight
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • Afghanistan
  • More Topics
  • About
  • Mission & History
  • Board & Staff
  • Financials
  • Take Action
  • For Federal Employees
  • COVID-19: Tips
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Project On Government Oversight
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
Accountability

Improving Transparency and Accountability at the Office of Legal Counsel

By Danielle Brian | Filed under letter | June 15, 2022

The Honorable Christopher H. Schroeder
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Re: Improving Transparency and Accountability at the Office of Legal Counsel

Dear Assistant Attorney General Schroeder:

I write to request a meeting to discuss the urgent need for transparency and accountability reforms at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

For over a decade, the Project On Government Oversight and our allies in civil society have written about the need for the Office of Legal Counsel to make its opinions public. In recent years, we have also called for the office to make more fundamental reforms, including undertaking a comprehensive review of its prior opinions, and withdrawing or revising the most harmful ones; developing a methodology for verifying the factual claims underlying its legal opinions; and subjecting OLC attorneys to heightened ethical standards.1 These reforms are consistent with ones you have expressed support for in the past, and we appreciate your record of advocacy for improvements to the office.2

Those concerns have taken on a new urgency based on the possibility that Office of Legal Counsel opinions are impeding congressional and Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions of former President Donald Trump and his high-level advisors for their role in the January 6 insurrection. In particular, we are concerned that:

(1) the line of OLC opinions asserting that current and former presidential advisors are absolutely immune from congressional subpoena3 may be preventing the Justice Department from taking appropriate action on the House of Representatives’ criminal referrals of Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro, and Dan Scavino for contempt of Congress; and
(2) an undisclosed OLC opinion (or similar opinion authored by former Assistant Attorney General for OLC Steven Engel) asserting that certain criminal statutes do not apply to the president under the “clear statement rule” may be an obstacle to the Justice Department criminally investigating former President Trump for his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 election.4

During your confirmation hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked you about judicial opinions contradicting and criticizing past OLC opinions, including those discussed above. You responded that you hoped that those opinions would be viewed as “aberrations” in OLC’s history, and said you would “take cognizance of judicial decisions” that had contradicted OLC’s views. But while OLC has taken the commendable step of disavowing some recent opinions that failed to respect the separation of powers,5 there has been no sign of either of the opinions mentioned above being withdrawn or superseded, and the Justice Department has refused to comment on their effect on the January 6 investigation and contempt referrals.

We understand that there are sensitive matters that you may not be at liberty to discuss concerning ongoing criminal investigations by the department. With that in mind, we respectfully request a meeting to discuss the urgency of disclosing the memos discussed above and other OLC documents relevant to the January 6 investigation, as well as improving accountability and transparency at the office more generally.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director

Author

  • Author

    Danielle Brian

    Danielle Brian is POGO's executive director and president.

Related Tags

    Accountability Justice System Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) January 6, 2021 Separation of Powers Executive Branch Department of Justice (DOJ)

Related Content

  • Constitutional Principles

    Is a Presidential Coup a Federal Crime? DOJ Owes Us an Answer

  • Abuse of Power

    Rubber Stamp or Rule of Law?

  • Abuse of Power

    Closely Held Contrivances

  • Constitutional Principles

    The Injustice Department

1 David Janovsky, “Rubber Stamp or Rule of Law?”, Project On Government Oversight, March 23, 2021, https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/03/rubber-stamp-or-rule-of-law; David Janovsky, “Closely Held Contrivances,” Project On Government Oversight, September 22, 2021, https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/09/closely-held-contrivances. 2 Walter Dellinger et al., “Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel,” December 21, 2004, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2927&context=faculty_scholarship#:~:text=OLC%20should%20follow%20a%20presumption,the%20lawfulness%20of%20governmental%20action. 3 See Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor to the President, 43 Op. O.L.C. __ (July 12, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1183271/download; Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President, 43 Op. O.L.C. __ (May 20, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1215066/download; Immunity of the Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach From Congressional Subpoena, 38 Op. O.L.C. __ (July 15, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download. 4 Katherine Hawkins and David Janovsky, “Is A Presidential Coup a Federal Crime? DOJ Owes Us an Answer,” Project On Government Oversight, June 1, 2022, https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/06/is-a-presidential-coup-a-federal-crime-doj-owes-us-an-answer. 5 See Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1), 45 Op. O.L.C. __ (July 30, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1419111/download

Site Footer

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • Press Center
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Briefing
  • Newsletters
  • Publications
  • Report Corruption
Better Business Bureau Accredited Charity CharityWatch Top Rated Charity Great Nonprofits 2021 Top-Rated Charity Navigator Four-Star Charity

©2023 POGO | Privacy Policy

Project On Government Oversight logo

Project On Government Oversight

Oversight in your inbox.