Accurate, Focused Research on Law, Technology and Knowledge Discovery Since 2002

Application of the Anti-Nepotism Statute to a Presidential Appointment in the White House Office

Opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel January 20, 2017 – “Section 105(a) of title 3, U.S. Code, which authorizes the President to appoint employees in the White House Office “without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service,” exempts positions in the White House Office from the prohibition on nepotism in 5 U.S.C. § 3110.”

“MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT – You have asked whether section 3110 of title 5, U.S. Code, which forbids a public official from appointing a relative “to a civilian position in the agency . . . over which [the official] exercises jurisdiction or control,” bars the President from appointing his son-in-law to a position in the White House Office, where the President’s immediate personal staff of advisors serve. We conclude that section 3110 does not bar this appointment because the President’s special hiring authority in 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) exempts positions in the White House Office from section 3110. A decision of the D.C. Circuit, Haddon v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam), lays out a different, but overlapping, route to the same result. According to the reasoning of Haddon, section 3110 does not reach an appointment in the White House Office because section 3110 covers only appointments in an “agency,” which the statute defines to include “Executive agenc[ies],” and the White House Office is not an “Executive agency” within the definition generally applicable to title 5. Although our analysis does not track every element of the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning about the meaning of “Executive agency,” we believe that Haddon arrived at the correct outcome and that our conclusion here—that, because of the President’s special hiring authority for the White House Office, section 3110 does not forbid the proposed appointment—squares with both the holding and a central part of the analysis in that case…”

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.