Weaponizing the Office of Legal Counsel

50 Pages Posted: 26 Sep 2019 Last revised: 31 Mar 2020

See all articles by Emily Berman

Emily Berman

University of Houston Law Center

Date Written: September 17, 2019


Commentators have written a great deal about what I call the “primary effects” of the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) work — the ways in which it establishes and dictates the executive’s position on the full spectrum of legal questions that branch confronts. This Article argues that this scholarly focus on OLC’s primary, intra-executive role has obscured the systemic effects that its positions play outside the executive branch — what I call its “secondary effects,” and which have thus far gone unremarked. My thesis is that, when it comes to inter-branch conflicts over congressional access to information in the executive branch’s possession, OLC opinions do not merely provide legal guidance to the executive branch but also actually influence the outcomes of those conflicts. More specifically, they place a thumb on the scale in the executive’s favor, making it harder for Congress to access the information it seeks.

Keywords: executive branch, congressional oversight, separation of powers, executive privilege, OLC, testimonial immunity

Suggested Citation

Berman, Emily, Weaponizing the Office of Legal Counsel (September 17, 2019). Boston College Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3455556 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3455556

Emily Berman (Contact Author)

University of Houston Law Center ( email )

4170 Martin Luther King Blvd
Houston, TX 77204-6060
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics