Authority of Executive Office of the President to Require

Independent Agencies to Conduct Background Checks of

Noncareer SES Candidates

No office o r agency within the Executive Office o f the President may require independent agencies 

to conduct certain background checks o f candidates for noncareer Senior Executive Service positions.

April 30, 1998

M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e C o u n s e l t o t h e P r e s i d e n t

You have asked whether the Office of Presidential Personnel (“ Presidential Personnel” ) may require that so-called independent agencies ensure that candidates 

for noncareer Senior Executive Service (“ SES” ) positions undergo certain 

reviews regarding their personal backgrounds, such as a review of Internal Revenue Service records about any tax delinquency. In particular, you have asked 

whether Presidential Personnel could prescribe such a rule for hiring noncareer 

SES personnel at the Merit Systems Protection Board. As we already have advised 

orally, we do not believe that any office or agency within the Executive Office 

of the President (“ EOP” ), including Presidential Personnel, may exercise that 

authority.1

Involvement by the EOP in particular hiring decisions for SES positions at independent agencies is specifically limited by 5 U.S.C. § 3392(d):

Appointment or removal of a person to or from any Senior Executive Service position in an independent regulatory commission shall 

not be subject, directly or indirectly, to review or approval by any 

officer or entity within the Executive Office of the President.

5 U.S.C. § 3392(d) (1994). The Report of the Senate Committee on Governmental 

Affairs expressly noted that subsection (d) was added “ in order to ensure that 

independent regulatory agencies are not subject to political control in the appointment of their top noncareer executives,” and that “ this insulation from the White 

House in appointments is necessary to maintain the independence of these agencies, as intended by the Congress.” S. Rep. No. 95-969, at 76 (1978). Section 

3392(d) thus specifically prohibits the EOP from reviewing any particular hiring 

decision for noncareer SES positions at independent agencies.

1 Far more complicated questions would be presented if the President himself, using his constitutional authority 

as head of the executive branch, U S Const art. II, §1, and his statutory authonty over the civil service, see,

e g , 5 U S .C §§3301, 7301, directed independent agencies to follow the procedures in question You have not 

asked us to address these questions at this time If you wish us to do so, we would be happy to undertake that 

analysis.

76
Authority o f Executive Office o f the President to Require Independent Agencies to Conduct Background

Checks o f Noncareer SES Candidates

A related provision governing appointment of personnel at the Merit Systems 

Protection Board contains parallel limitations on EOP review of appointment 

decisions. Section 1204 of title 5, which authorizes the Chairman of the Board 

to appoint personnel “ as may be necessary to perform the functions of the 

Board,” provides:

Any appointment made under this subsection shall comply with the 

provisions of this title, except that such appointment shall not be 

subject to the approval or supervision of the Office of Personnel 

Management or the Executive Office of the President (other than 

approval required under section 3324 or subchapter VIII of chapter 

33).

5 U.S.C. § 1204(j) (1994). The approval required by §3324, referred to in parentheses, pertains to the appointment to a position “ classified above GS-15,” which 

(with certain exceptions) “ may be made only on approval of the qualifications 

of the proposed appointee by the Office of Personnel Management.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3324(a) (1994). Subchapter VIII of chapter 33, in turn, refers to 5 U.S.C. 

§§3391-3397, and therefore incorporates the limitations on EOP and OPM 

approval set forth in §3392. As the conference report explains, § 1204(j) was 

intended “ to prevent ‘political clearance’ of appointments.” S. Rep. No. 95-1272, 

at 133 (1978). It was thought to be “ inappropriate for any unit of the White 

House or the Office of Personnel Management to screen such candidates.” Id.

As this statutory scheme makes clear, Presidential Personnel is specifically 

prohibited from directly or indirectly reviewing the appointment of any particular 

individual to an SES position at an independent regulatory commission. These 

prohibitions apply with equal force to appointment or removal decisions regarding 

such positions at the Merit Systems Protection Board.

These provisions, while specifically applicable only to decisions about hiring 

or firing particular employees, also lead to the conclusion that Presidential Personnel cannot impose a more general requirement for the procedures to be followed by independent agencies in selecting SES personnel. Presidential Personnel 

could enforce such a requirement only by reviewing and. refusing to approve particular candidates that independent agencies wanted to hire without completing 

the mandated procedures. But it is precisely such review and approval that 5 

U.S.C. §§ 1204(j) and 3392(d) forbid.2

Finally, neither 5 U.S.C. § 1204(j) nor 5 U.S.C. § 3392(d) would bar Presidential 

Personnel from recommending to independent agencies that they conduct the background reviews at issue here. Such recommendations, unlike requirements, would

2 We assume that the relevant question here is whether Presidential Personnel can “ require” the general procedures 

in the sense of compelling obedience to them In concluding that Presidential Personnel may not compel obedience, 

we do not mean to suggest that it would be unlawful to issue such a directive, but rather that the directive would 

be legally ineffective unless Presidential Personnel took further steps that the law would forbid

77
Opinions of the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 22

not involve review or approval of particular candidates for hiring and therefore 

would not be barred by those statutes.

BETH NOLAN 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office of Legal Counsel

78