How do DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinions define “excepted” work under the Antideficiency Act?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) defines “excepted” work under the Antideficiency Act as a narrow set of activities that may continue when an appropriation lapses: functions expressly authorized by statute, activities involving emergencies that threaten human life or property, duties whose authority arises by necessary implication to carry out funded programs or other branches’ constitutional functions, and certain tasks required to discharge the President’s constitutional responsibilities; OLC repeatedly emphasizes that non-excepted work is barred during a lapse [1] [2] [3]. OLC also stresses that statutory authorization must be clear and that routine enabling language alone typically is insufficient to create an exception [4].
1. What OLC lists as the categories of “excepted” work
OLC’s modern framework identifies four principal categories: express statutory authorizations to spend in advance of appropriations, the emergency exception for activities necessary for the safety of human life or protection of property (31 U.S.C. § 1342), authority that exists by necessary implication to enable essential government functions or to support funded programs, and functions tied to the President’s constitutional duties—each category forms the legal basis for treating particular work as “excepted” from the Act’s bar on incurring obligations during a lapse [2] [1] [3].
2. How OLC treats express statutory authorization and its limits
OLC requires that express statutory authorizations be sufficiently specific to overcome the Antideficiency Act’s general prohibition; mere general language in an agency’s organic statute or routine program direction will not automatically create an exception, because OLC has warned that simple enabling provisions are usually insufficient to support a finding of express authorization [4]. The implication is practical: agencies and counsel must identify a clear legal text that explicitly permits obligations in the absence of an appropriation to qualify work as excepted [4].
3. The emergency exception: narrow and fact-specific
The emergency exception is limited and focused: OLC reads 31 U.S.C. § 1342 to allow accepting voluntary services or employing personal services only in bona fide emergencies involving imminent threats to human life or the protection of property, a construction echoed in GAO explanations of the statute and OLC supplemental opinions that frame the emergency carve-out as narrow rather than expansive [4] [5]. OMB and White House lapse guidance likewise treat the emergency exception as a tightly constrained pathway for excepting employees and activities [3] [6].
4. Necessary implication and supporting funded activities or branches
OLC has developed a “necessary implication” doctrine that permits some otherwise unfunded obligations when they are required to support an agency’s funded activities or to avoid impairing another branch’s constitutionally assigned functions; in practice OLC has allowed narrowly tailored obligations where non-execution would thwart funded programs or core government operations, but it cautions that the doctrine cannot be invoked by slender inferences and must be grounded in concrete necessity [7] [4].
5. Orderly shutdown and White House/President-specific carveouts
OLC recognizes a distinct, limited authority to incur minimal obligations necessary to bring about an orderly shutdown of agency operations—authority it describes as a necessary implication of the Antideficiency Act itself—and it has specifically applied the framework to determine which White House Office personnel may be employed during a lapse, identifying functions tied to emergencies, express or implied statutory authority, and presidential constitutional duties as permissible exceptions [1] [2].
6. How OLC’s approach is operationalized and contested (limits of reporting)
Operational guidance from OMB and agency contingency plans translate OLC’s doctrinal categories into personnel and mission decisions (for example OMB Circular A‑11 practices cited in secondary explainers), and GAO’s resource materials reiterate the legal constraints and reporting requirements for Antideficiency Act violations [8] [5]; critics argue in fora beyond the documents provided here that expansive readings of “necessary implication” risk executive overreach, but the supplied sources do not contain a systematic critique or empirical analysis of such claims, so this account confines itself to OLC’s own definitions and cautions [7] [4].