Congressional Research Service Reports - 3,815 Matching Results

Search Results

Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: A Brief Legal Analysis

Description: Administrative subpoena authority is the power vested in various administrative agencies to compel testimony or the production of documents or both in aid of the agencies’ performance of their duties. As a constitutional matter, the Fourth Amendment only demands that administrative subpoenas be "reasonable." Although more extensive proposals were offered in the 108th Congress, the law enforcement related administrative subpoena proposals in the 109th Congress appear in S. 600, relating to the Secretary of State’s responsibilities to protect U.S. foreign missions and foreign dignitaries visiting this country; in H.R. 3726, relating to federal obscenity investigations; and in H.R. 4170, relating to the apprehension of fugitives charged with, or convicted of, federal or state felonies. This report is available abridged – without footnotes, appendices, and most of the citations to authority – as CRS Report RS22407, Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: A Sketch, by Charles Doyle.
Date: March 17, 2006
Creator: Doyle, Charles
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: A Sketch

Description: Administrative subpoena authority is the power vested in various administrative agencies to compel testimony or the production of documents or both in aid of the agencies’ performance of their duties. Proposals in the 109th Congress for greater use of administrative subpoenas in a law enforcement context appear in S. 600, relating to the Secretary of State’s responsibilities to protect U.S. foreign missions and foreign dignitaries visiting this country; in H.R. 3726, relating to federal obscenity investigations; and in H.R. 4170, relating to the apprehension of fugitives charged with, or convicted of, federal or state felonies. This is an abridged version — without footnotes, appendices, quotation marks and most citations to authority — of CRS Report RL33321, Administrative Subpoenas in Criminal Investigations: Background and Proposed Adjustments, by Charles Doyle.
Date: March 17, 2006
Creator: Doyle, Charles
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Monopoly and Monopolization - Fundamental But Separate Concepts in U.S. Antitrust Law

Description: This report illustrates the difference between the concepts of “monopoly” and “monopolization” by touching on the monopoly/monopolization thinking in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as illustrated in (1) statements on merger enforcement made by recent antitrust enforcement officials (generally indicative of the agencies’ concerns about competitive conditions and the effect of various market transactions), (2) the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines 2 and (3) some observations on the Government actions against the Microsoft and Intel Corporations.
Date: August 20, 2001
Creator: Rubin, Janice E
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress

Description: Report that provides information on the procedure for the appointment of an "independent counsel," a "special prosecutor," or a "special counsel" to investigate and prosecute potential or possible violations of federal criminal law by officials in the executive branch of the federal government and in federal agencies.
Date: June 20, 2013
Creator: Maskell, Jack
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Supreme Court October Term 2017: A Preview of Select Cases

Description: This report highlights four of the notable cases of the new term that could impact the work of Congress: (1) Carpenter v. United States, which examines the limits the Fourth Amendment imposes on the warrantless collection of the historical cell phone location records of a criminal suspect; (2) Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a case exploring whether Congress, by prohibiting a state from partially repealing a state law, impermissibly commandeers the powers of the state; (3) Gill v. Whitford, which considers when a state's redistricting plan amounts to impermissible partisan gerrymandering; and (4) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether a baker has a First Amendment right to decline to make cakes for same-sex weddings. Each case is addressed in a separate section that provides background information on the case; summarizes the arguments that were or are likely to be presented to the Court in each case; and examines the implications that the Court's ruling could have for Congress, including broader ramifications for the jurisprudence in a given area of law.
Date: September 19, 2017
Creator: Nolan, Andrew; Brannon, Valerie C.; Garcia, Michael John; Harrington, Ben; Sykes, Jay B. & Whitaker, L. Paige
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Monopoly and Monopolization - Fundamental But Separate Concepts in U.S. Antitrust Law

Description: This report illustrates the difference between the concepts of “monopoly” and “monopolization” by touching on the monopoly/monopolization thinking in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as illustrated in (1) statements on merger enforcement made by recent antitrust enforcement officials (generally indicative of the agencies’ concerns about competitive conditions and the effect of various market transactions), (2) the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines 2 and (3) some observations on the Government actions against the Microsoft and Intel Corporations.
Date: June 28, 1999
Creator: Rubin, Janice E
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Abortion: Judicial Control

Description: In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and that a State may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right by regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating that decision, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. But rather than settling the issue, the Court's rulings have kindled heated debate and precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, State and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or hinder their effectuation. This brief discusses this ongoing issue, highlighting judicial history and decisions.
Date: March 10, 1988
Creator: Lewis, Karen J.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department