Attorney General’s Authority with Respect to the Regulatory

Initiatives of the U.S. Parole Commission

T h e A ttorney G e n eral has th e au th o rity to require th e U nited S tates P aro le C o m m issio n , a c o m ­

p o n e n t o f th e D e p a r tm e n t o f J u s tic e fo r a d m in is tra tiv e p u rp o s e s , to p a rtic ip a te in 

D ep artm en t-w id e re g u la to ry c o o rd in a tio n that d o es n o t e n tail su b sta n tiv e c o n tro l o f th e 

C o m m issio n ’s re g u la to ry initiatives. T h e A ttorney G eneral thus m ay re q u ire th e C o m m issio n 

to subm it an y p ro p o se d reg u latio n s to the O ffice o f M an ag em en t and B u d g e t's O ffice o f 

Inform ation a n d R eg u lato ry A ffairs th ro u g h th e D e p artm e n t’s O ffice o f P o licy D e v elo p m en t 

a nd m ay a lso re q u ire th e C o m m issio n to k eep O P D in fo rm ed o f any re g u la to ry in itia tiv e s 

u n d er c o n sid eratio n .

T he C o m m issio n ’s s ta tu to ry status as an “independent a g en cy " w ithin the D e p artm e n t p re c lu d e s 

the A tto rn e y G e n e ra l as a g e n e ra l m a tte r from a sse rtin g s u b sta n tiv e c o n tro l o v e r th e 

C om m ission’s policym aking, including its issuance o f regulations. A ccordingly, the A ttorney 

Genera] m ay not require the C om m ission to obtain O PD approval o f its proposed regulations.

October 10, 1990

M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n f o r t h e D i r e c t o r

O f f i c e o f P o l i c y D e v e l o p m e n t

This memorandum responds to your request for our opinion as to whether 

the Attorney General may require the United States Parole Commission 

(“Commission”) to participate in a centralized regulatory coordination process established by the Attorney General at the request of the Office of 

Management and Budget (“OMB”). Specifically, you asked whether the 

Attorney General may require the Commission to consult the Office of Policy 

Development (“OPD”) concerning the Commission’s regulatory initiatives 

and to submit proposed regulations to OPD in advance of their submission 

to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”). As explained more fully below, we conclude that the Attorney General has the 

authority to require the Commission, as an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, to coordinate its regulatory activities with OPD and other 

components of the Department. The Attorney General thus may require the 

Commission to submit any proposed regulations to OIRA through OPD and 

may also require the Commission to keep OPD informed of any regulatory 

initiatives under consideration. The Commission’s statutory status as an 

“independent agency” within the Department, however, precludes the Attorney

139
General as a general matter from asserting substantive control over the 

Commission’s policymaking, including its issuance of regulations. Accordingly, the Commission may not be required to obtain OPD approval of its 

proposed regulations.

I.

On April 10, 1989, the Administrator of OIRA sent a memorandum to the 

Attorney General stating that OIRA believed that the process of regulatory 

review and coordination “would be improved if the Department established 

a single point of contact for working with various Justice offices and OMB 

staff on the review of rules.” Memorandum for Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General, from J. Plager, Administrator, OIRA (Apr. 10, 1989). The 

memorandum explained that a “single point of contact would help avert 

confusion over what Departmental regulations are subject to OMB review 

and speed the overall Justice and OMB review process.” Id. Pursuant to 

this recommendation, the Attorney General sent a memorandum on March 

14, 1990 to the heads of all components of the Department of Justice outlining new procedures for the coordination of Departmental regulatory initiatives. 

Memorandum from Dick Thornburgh to All Component Heads (Mar. 14, 

1990). In the memorandum, the Attorney General designated OPD as the 

Department’s principal point of contact in the coordination of the regulatory 

clearance process. The Attorney General’s memorandum states that all components “should consult with OPD with respect to proposed regulations at 

an early stage of the process for informal review,” noting that this procedure 

“will allow OPD to generally coordinate the Department’s rulemaking activities, 

and to identify potential policy inconsistencies informally early on.” Id. at 2. In 

addition, when preparation of a proposed regulation is complete, it must be 

“transmitted to OPD before being submitted to OIRA for clearance.” Id.

The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Benjamin Baer, has since stated 

his view that the requirements of the Attorney General’s March 14 memorandum do not apply to the regulatory initiatives of the Commission. 

Memorandum for T. Boyd, Director, Office of Policy Development, from B. 

Baer, Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission (Apr. 9, 1990). Mr. Baer asserted 

that, in view of the Commission’s status as “an independent agency that 

promulgates its regulations pursuant to direct statutory authority,” it is not 

subject to the procedures set forth in the Attorney General’s memorandum, 

at least with respect to “the quite narrow issues of paroling policy and procedure that are covered by the Commission’s regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 

through § 2.64.” Id. Mr. Baer assumed that it would “not be objectionable” 

if the Commission continued to submit its proposed regulations directly to 

OIRA for review. He noted, however, that “[r]egulatory initiatives such as 

proposed parole guideline changes that concern specific types of crimes are 

routinely coordinated with the appropriate DOJ components.” Id. Mr. Baer

140
also stated that he would “be glad to send any U.S. Parole Commission 

regulatory initiatives to OPD for comment prior to the Commission’s quarterly meetings.” Id.

II.

The Commission was established in 1976 as “an independent agency in 

the Department of Justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 4202.1 The legislative history of 

the Act that created the Commission states that Congress intended the Commission to be “independent for policy-making purposes” but that the 

Commission would be “attached to the Department of Justice for administrative convenience.” S. Rep. No. 369, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 14 (1975), 

reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 335, 336; see also id. at 20, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

at 342 (“The Commission is attached to the Department for administrative 

reasons but its decision-making machinery is independent . . . .”); H.R. Conf. 

Rep. No. 838, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 20 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

351, 353 (“[The Commission is] independent of the Department of Justice 

for decision-making purposes.”). Indeed, the Conference Report on the bill 

stated that “[t]he Commission is attached to the Department solely for administrative purposes.” Id. at 21, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 353 (emphasis added); 

see also H.R. Rep. No. 184, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1975) (“Except for 

administrative purposes, the Commission is to be independent of the Department . . . .”). Congress granted the Commission independence from the 

Department because it wanted to ensure that “parole decisionmaking [would] 

be independent of, and not governed by, the investigative and prosecutorial 

functions of the Department of Justice.” 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 353; see also

S. Rep. No. 369, at 20, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 342 (“[The Commission’s] 

decision-making machinery is independent so as to guard against influence 

in case decisions.”).2

The Commission possesses independent statutory authority to “promulgate rules and regulations establishing guidelines for the [Commission’s 

powers] and such other rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out a 

national parole policy.” 18 U.S.C. § 4203(a)(1). Pursuant to this authority, 

the Commission has promulgated regulations relating to the standards and 

procedures governing the granting, regulation, and revocation of parole. See

28 C.F.R. §§ 2.1-2.66 (1989). The amendment of these regulations or the 

adoption of new regulations, if “necessary to carry out a national parole policy,” 

is within the range of “policy-making” activities that Congress intended to be

1 C hapter 311 o f title 18 o f the U.S. C ode, consisting o f sections 4201-4218, w as repealed by section 

218(a)(5) o fP u b .L . No. 98-473,98 Stat. 1837,2027 (1984), effective Nov. 1,1986. Section 2 3 5 (b )(ll)(A ) 

o f Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. at 2032, provides, however, that chapter 311 shall rem ain in effect for 

five years after Nov. 1, 1986, as to certain specified individuals.

2 T he fact that the C om m ission is independent for policy-m aking purposes from the A ttorney G eneral 

does not in itself present a constitutional problem . Nothing in the statute creating the C om m ission 

purports to limit the President's constitutional authority to supervise and control the C om m ission. In ­

deed, the C om m ission has alw ays subm itted its proposed regulations to OIRA for review.

141
generally independent from direct Departmental control. Although the adoption of a particular regulation might not compel a specific result in any 

given parole decision, Congress’s grant of independent regulatory authority 

to the Commission, which Congress intended to be independent from the 

Department for “policy-making purposes,” confirms that the Commission’s 

independence is not limited to decisions in individual cases, but extends to 

the issuance of regulations governing the granting, regulation, and revocation of parole. Accordingly, we conclude that the Attorney General may not 

require the Commission to obtain OPD approval of its proposed regulations.3

Because the Commission remains “attached” to the Department for adm inistrative purposes,4 however, the Attorney General may require the 

Commission to participate in Department-wide regulatory coordination that 

does not entail substantive control of the Commission’s regulatory initiatives. For example, this office previously informed the Commission that it 

was required to participate in the preparation of a unified calendar of the 

major regulations then under development in the Department, which was to 

be used by the President’s Regulatory Council. Memorandum for Cecil C. 

M cCall, Chairm an, United States Parole Commission, from Larry A. 

Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Dec. 

8, 1978). The Commission was also subject to the Attorney General’s order 

providing for Departmental review of the Semi-Annual Agenda of Regulations that was required to be prepared under Executive Order No. 12044 by 

each component. Memorandum to Heads of Offices, Boards and Divisions 

(including the U.S. Parole Commission), from Larry A. Hammond, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (May 14, 1979); see

also Report on the Implementation of Executive Order No. 12044, “Improving Government Regulations”, Att’y Gen. Order No. 831-79, § 111(A)(5), 44 

Fed. Reg. 30,461, 30,463 (1979). Similarly, we believe that the Attorney 

General may require the Commission to keep OPD informed of its pending 

regulatory initiatives, so long as OPD does not thereby acquire any power to 

disapprove or delay the Commission’s proposed regulations. The Attorney 

General may also require the Commission to submit its proposed regulations 

to OIRA through OPD, provided that OPD does not exercise substantive 

approval authority over the regulations.

3 W e note that O M B ’s mem orandum to the Attorney G eneral did not purport to delegate to the A ttorney 

G eneral the President’s authority to oversee and supervise the substantive actions o f the C om m ission. 

T h erefo re, we do not address w hether the A ttorney G eneral could properly exercise, through delegation, 

the P resid e n t’s oversight authority, notw ithstanding the C om m ission’s statutory status as an “independent agency w ithin the Departm ent.”

4 C o n g ress has expressly provided, how ever, that the C om m ission’s budgetary requests shall be separate from those o f any other com ponent of the D epartm ent. 18 U .S.C . § 4203(a)(3) (1982).

142
CONCLUSION

We conclude that the Attorney General may require the Commission, a 

component of the Department for administrative purposes, to inform OPD of 

its regulatory initiatives and may also require the Commission to submit its 

proposed regulations to OIRA through OPD. The Commission’s statutory 

status as an independent agency in the Department, however, prevents the 

Attorney General from requiring the Commission to obtain substantive approval of its proposed regulations from OPD.

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

143