Summary
This memorandum opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel addresses whether the Secretary of War may designate the Defense Innovation Unit and Strategic Capabilities Office as Department of War Field Activities under 10 U.S.C. § 191. It concludes that the Secretary may designate existing organizations when their governing statutes are compatible with Field Activity requirements, and that the procedural requirements in section 8044 of Public Law 118-47 are not triggered because the designation did not establish a new field operating agency.
Holdings
- The Secretary may designate an existing Department of War organization as a Field Activity under 10 U.S.C. § 191, provided that the organization's governing statute is not inconsistent with the statutory requirements for a Field Activity.
- The Secretary may designate the Defense Innovation Unit and Strategic Capabilities Office as Field Activities because each is a single Department of War organization, performs a service or activity common to more than one military department, and can be supervised by an Office of the Secretary of War official as required by 10 U.S.C. § 192.
- Designating the DIU and SCO as Field Activities did not establish new Field Operating Agencies and therefore did not trigger the procedural requirements of section 8044.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Secretary may designate an existing Department of War organization as a Field Activity under 10 U.S.C. § 191 when the organization's structure or mission is at least partly governed by statute.
- Whether the statutory reporting and supervisory requirements governing the Defense Innovation Unit and Strategic Capabilities Office are consistent with designation of those organizations as Field Activities.
- Whether designating the existing Defense Innovation Unit and Strategic Capabilities Office as Field Activities established new Field Operating Agencies and thereby triggered the procedural requirements of section 8044 of Public Law 118-47.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (18)
- Liquidation of Reconstruction Finance Corporation—Disclosure of Information, 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 166, 169–70 (1953)(followed)
- FCC v. Consumers' Research, 145 S. Ct. 2482, 2496–97 (2025)(followed)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000)(followed)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997)(followed)
- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 502 (2018)(followed)
- Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1863–64 (2022)(followed)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012)(followed)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992)(followed)
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013)(followed)
- Federal Election Commission v. Cruz, 142 S. Ct. 1638, 1649 (2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…