Whether Conflict of Interest Laws Apply to a Person 

Assisting a Supreme Court Nominee

On the facts described, former Senator Fred Thompson would not be an “officer” or “employee” of the 

federal government if he assisted a Supreme Court nominee during the process of confirmation by 

the Senate, and as a consequence the federal conflict of interest laws would not apply to him.

July 22, 2005

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked whether, for purposes of the federal conflict of interest laws, 

former Senator Fred Thompson would be an “officer” or “employee” of the federal 

government if he assisted a Supreme Court nominee during the process of 

confirmation by the Senate. On the facts as you have described them, we believe 

that Mr. Thompson would not be an “officer” or “employee” and that, as a 

consequence, the conflict of interest restrictions would not apply to him.

As you have explained the facts to us, Mr. Thompson informed the President 

that he was available to assist the nominee, to advocate the nominee’s confirmation, and to advise the nominee about how to deal with members of the Senate.

The President encouraged such an arrangement, but the nominee will decide 

whether to take up Mr. Thompson’s offer. The nominee, rather than anyone at the 

White House, will have the authority to end the arrangement at any time. Mr. 

Thompson will report to the nominee, not to the White House. He will not hold 

himself out as speaking for the government. Mr. Thompson will represent the 

nominee only for purposes of his nomination to the Supreme Court and only in his 

capacity as a nominee, not in his capacity as a sitting federal judge. Although Mr. 

Thompson will consult and work with government personnel, he will not be under 

their direction or control, and he, in turn, will not direct or control government 

personnel, for example by calling or chairing meetings of government personnel.

He will not have an office in a federal building or otherwise have the right of an 

employee to use government facilities. The government will not pay for his 

services or cover his expenses.

As we have previously explained, the application of the principal conflict of 

interest restrictions governing the Executive Branch depends on the meaning of 

the terms “officer” and “employee.” See Application of Conflict of Interest Rules 

to Appointees Who Have Not Begun Service, 26 Op. O.L.C. 32 (2002) (“Conflict 

of Interest Rules”). The major conflict of interest provisions—the criminal conflict 

of interest laws, 18 U.S.C. §§ 202–209 (2000); the directives in Executive Order 

12674, Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees, 

3 C.F.R. 215 (1989 Comp.); and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees 

of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. pt. 2635 (2005) (“Standards of Ethical Conduct”)—all apply only to “officers” and “employees” of the federal government.

127 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 29 

Title 18 does not define “officer” or “employee,” but we have found the definitions in title 5 to be “‘the most obvious source of a definition’ for title 18 purposes.” Applicability of Executive Order No. 12674 to Personnel of Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, 17 Op. O.L.C. 150, 154 (1993) (“Fishery Management 

Councils”) (quoting Conflict of Interest—Status of an Informal Presidential 

Advisor as a “Special Government Employee,” 1 Op. O.L.C. 20 (1977) (“Informal 

Presidential Advisor”)). The title 5 definitions set up a three-part test. Under 

5 U.S.C. § 2104 (2000), an “officer” is someone who is (1) “required by law to be 

appointed in the civil service by [the President, a court of the United States, the 

head of an Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department] acting in 

an official capacity,” (2) “engaged in the performance of a Federal function under 

authority of law or an Executive act,” and (3) “subject to the supervision” of the 

President or the head of an executive agency or military department. Under 

5 U.S.C. § 2105 (2000), the term “employee” covers an “officer” and any person 

who is engaged in federal functions, but is appointed and supervised by specified 

federal officials other than those able to appoint and supervise “officers.” See 

Conflict of Interest Rules, 26 Op. O.L.C. at 33. For both “officers” and “employees,” therefore, the test is essentially the same.1

The executive order reaches “employees,” a term that covers “any officer[s] or 

employee[s] of an agency.” Exec. Order No. 12674, § 503(b). We have concluded 

that these terms in the executive order “are identical in scope and meaning with 

the terms ‘officer’ and ‘employee’ as used in 5 U.S.C. §§ 2104 and 2105.” Fishery 

Management Councils, 17 Op. O.L.C. at 153. Furthermore, because the Standards 

of Ethical Conduct implement the executive order, we have found the same 

definitions applicable to the implementing regulations as well as the executive 

order. Id. at 150 n.2, 158.

In each instance, therefore, the application of the conflict of interest rules depends on the meaning of “officer” or “employee,” and those terms take their 

meaning from the three-part test derived from title 5: (1) “required by law to be 

appointed in the civil service by [a federal official] acting in an official capacity,” 

(2) “engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an 

Executive act,” and (3) “subject to the supervision” of federal officials. A person is 

an “officer” or “employee” only if he meets all three requirements. See Conflict of 

1 For purposes of the conflict of interest laws, title 18 does define a subclass of “employees.” The 

term “special Government employee” includes “an officer or employee of the executive . . . branch of 

the United States Government . . . who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with 

or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three 

hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties, either on a full-time or intermittent basis.”

18 U.S.C. § 202(a) (2000). This definition itself depends on the meaning of the terms “officer” and 

“employee,” which are not defined in section 202(a).

128 

 
Whether Conflict of Interest Laws Apply to Person Assisting Supreme Court Nominee

Interest Rules, 26 Op. O.L.C. at 35 (citing McCarley v. MSPB, 757 F.2d 278, 280 

(Fed. Cir. 1985)).

On the facts you have described, none of the three requirements would be 

satisfied. For purposes of the conflict of interest restrictions, therefore, Mr. 

Thompson would not be an “officer” or “employee.”

First, Mr. Thompson would not be appointed in the civil service by a federal 

official. In Informal Presidential Advisor, we observed that this requirement 

suggests “a formal relationship between the individual and the Government,” 

1 Op. O.L.C. at 21, and that “[i]n the usual case, this formal relationship is based 

on an identifiable act of appointment,” id. Here, there will be no formal act of 

appointment by a federal official. Indeed, although the President has responded 

positively to Mr. Thompson’s offer to be available to assist the nominee, the 

choice to use Mr. Thompson’s services will be left to the nominee, acting in his 

personal capacity.

To be sure, “an identifiable act of appointment may not be absolutely essential 

for an individual to be regarded as an officer or employee in a particular case 

where the parties omitted it for the purpose of avoiding the application of the 

conflict of interest laws or perhaps where there was a firm mutual understanding 

that a relatively formal relationship existed.” Id.; see also Ass’n of Am. Physicians 

& Surgeons v. Clinton, 187 F.3d 655, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999). On the present facts, 

however, the absence of a formal appointment does not arise from an attempt to 

circumvent the conflict of interest laws. Because none of the three requirements is 

met, the absence of a formal appointment does not avoid a conclusion that would 

otherwise be reached about application of conflict of interest rules. Instead, the 

absence of an appointment reflects that the federal government has only an 

informal relationship with Mr. Thompson.

Second, Mr. Thompson will not be “engaged in the performance of a Federal 

function under authority of law or an Executive act.” He will advocate the 

nominee’s confirmation and will advise the nominee about dealing with the 

Senate. In this role, he will not purport to speak for the government. He therefore 

will be performing the function of a private advocate taking part in the debates and 

proceedings on confirmation, rather than the function of a government official. See 

Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”), Letter to a Designated Agency Ethics 

Official, Informal Advisory Ltr. 95x8, 1995 WL 855434, at *7 (July 10) (a person 

would not be an employee where, “pursuant to the proposed arrangement, [he] 

would be working . . . as a representative of [an outside person or group], not the 

United States, and . . . would not be authorized to speak, or purport to speak, on 

behalf of the agency”); cf., e.g., 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(b) (2005) (restricting an 

employee’s references to his official position when he is speaking or writing in a 

private capacity). Furthermore, he will not be directing the actions of federal 

officials, for example by “coordinating the Administration’s activities in [this] 

particular area,” Informal Presidential Advisor, 1 Op. O.L.C. at 23, or by calling 

129 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 29 

or chairing meetings of government personnel, id. He will consult and work with 

government officials, but in this respect he will be in the same position as many 

representatives of outside persons or groups who share interests with the government. Such cooperation does not mean that the representative of the outside person 

or group is performing a federal function.

Third, Mr. Thompson will not be subject to the direction of federal officials. To 

the extent that Mr. Thompson is not determining his own activities, the nominee in 

his private capacity will direct what Mr. Thompson does. See OGE, Memorandum 

to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, General Counsels and Inspectors General 

Regarding Summary of Ethical Requirements Applicable to Special Government 

Employees, Informal Advisory Mem. 00x1, 2000 WL 33407342, at *2 (Feb. 15) 

(“Summary of Ethical Requirements”) (although the degree of control over shortterm employees need not be as great as over permanent employees, “supervision 

or operational control remains an important attribute of employee status”). The 

nominee, moreover, will decide whether his assistance will be used at all and, if 

so, for how long. The power to end Mr. Thompson’s service, which the nominee 

rather than the government will have, is “a key indicator of supervision.” OGE, 

Letter to an Individual, Informal Advisory Ltr. 01x11, 2001 WL 34091920, at *2

(Nov. 29); see Fishery Management Councils, 17 Op. O.L.C. at 155–56.

Informal Presidential Advisor observed that this third part of the test “has been 

of importance in the conflict-of-interest area primarily in determining whether an 

individual is an independent contractor rather than an employee and therefore not 

subject to the conflict-of-interest laws.” 1 Op. O.L.C. at 21. Mr. Thompson will 

not be working for the government and will not even be the government’s 

independent contractor; it is therefore unnecessary to use the test to draw that 

distinction here. Nevertheless, we note that the factors by which independent 

contractors are distinguished from employees point, overwhelmingly, to the 

conclusion that Mr. Thompson is not an employee of the government. He does not 

take instructions from the government or receive government training; his work is 

not integrated into the government’s business; he does not have a continuing 

relationship with the government; the government does not set his hours of work; 

he is not required to report to the government on his activities; he is not paid by 

the government; the government is not responsible for his expenses; the government cannot discharge him; he furnishes his own materials (such as they are); he 

may do other work at the same time; and he may quit without liability. See Hosp. 

Res. Pers., Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 421, 427 (11th Cir. 1995) (cited in OGE, 

Summary of Ethical Requirements, 2000 WL 33407342, at *15 n.4). Furthermore, 

although Mr. Thompson may consult with officials on government premises, he 

would not have an office in a government building or otherwise have the right to 

use government facilities that employees enjoy. Cf. Informal Presidential Advisor, 

1 Op. O.L.C. at 21 (a person is probably an employee if he “works on Government 

premises under the direction of Government personnel and performs work of a 

kind normally handled by Government employees”). Mr. Thompson does render 

130 
Whether Conflict of Interest Laws Apply to Person Assisting Supreme Court Nominee

his services personally, see Hosp. Res. Pers., 68 F.3d at 427, and it may be that a 

lower level of control is necessary to find that professional services, as opposed to 

nonprofessional ones, involve the level of supervision that could make someone an 

employee, see OGE, Summary of Ethical Requirements, 2000 WL 33407342, at 

*15 n.3. But an examination of the usual factors dictates the conclusion here that 

the government would not control Mr. Thompson’s activities.

We therefore conclude that Mr. Thompson, on the facts as stated, would not be 

an “officer” or “employee” subject to the federal conflict of interest rules.

STEVEN G. BRADBURY

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office of Legal Counsel

131