10 U.S.C. § 1589

Participation in management of specified non-Federal entities: authorized activities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Authorization.—(1) The Secretary concerned may authorize an employee described in paragraph (2) to serve without compensation as a director, officer, or trustee, or to otherwise participate, in the management of an entity designated under subsection (b). Any such authorization shall be made on a case-by-case basis, for a particular employee to participate in a specific capacity with a specific designated entity. Such authorization may be made only for the purpose of providing oversight and advice to, and coordination with, the designated entity, and participation of the employee in the activities of the designated entity may not extend to participation in the day-to-day operations of the entity.(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any employee of the Department of Defense or, in the case of the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy, of the Department of Homeland Security. For purposes of this section, the term “employee” includes a civilian officer.(b)Designated Entities.—The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall designate those entities for which authorization under subsection (a) may be provided. The list of entities so designated may not be revised more frequently than semiannually. In making such designations, the Secretary shall designate each military welfare society named in paragraph (2) of section 1033(b) of this title and may designate any other entity described in paragraph (3) of such section. No other entities may be designated.(c)Publication of Designated Entities and of Authorized Persons.—A designation of an entity under subsection (b), and an authorization under subsection (a) of an employee to participate in the management of such an entity, shall be published in the Federal Register.(d)Civilians Outside the Military Departments.—In this section, the term “Secretary concerned” includes the Secretary of Defense with respect to employees of the Department of Defense who are not employees of a military department.(e)Regulations.—The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.(Added Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title V, § 593(b)(1), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1763; amended Pub. L. 107–296, title XVII, § 1704(b)(1), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2314.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1589, added Pub. L. 98–525, title XIV, § 1401(f)(1), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2618, provided, with exceptions, for prohibition on payment of lodging expenses when adequate Government quarters were available, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, § 1614(b)(1), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2739.

Amendments

2002—Subsecs. (a)(2), (b), (e). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted “of Homeland Security” for “of Transportation”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective on the date of transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, see section 1704(g) of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1939–1996 · leading case: State of Ga. v. Westlake, 929 F. Supp. 1516 (M.D. Ga. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Ga. v. Westlake, 929 F. Supp. 1516 (M.D. Ga. 1996). “The statute was originally codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1589 and then, in 1950, was moved to 50 U.”

Minnesota v. Keeley, 126 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1942). “811 , 10 U.S.C.A. § 1589 . See Act of June 18, 1934, c.”

State v. Dorko, 247 F. Supp. 866 (N.D. Ohio 1965). “The statute appeared in 10 U.S.C. § 1589 until 1950, then in 50 U.”

Pendleton v. Bussey, 30 F. Supp. 211 (W.D. Va. 1939). · cites it 2× “Defendants’ first point is that this Court has no jurisdiction, in that no federal jurisdiction was stated in plaintiff’s notice of motion, and that the proper diversity of citizenship does not exist.”

Williams v. Peters, 10 F.R.D. 445 (D. Mass. 1950). “As long as facts justifying removal are alleged, it seems to me a matter of little moment whether technically it should have been petitioned under 10 U.S.C.A. § 1589 . Assuming, but not deciding, that the plaintiff’s argument is correct, the Court would, in the interests of…”

Keppleman v. Upston, 84 F. Supp. 478 (N.D. Cal. 1949). “§§ 1446 and 1447, and specifically as provided for in 10 U.S. C.A. § 1589, which section covers suits brought against army personnel in State Courts.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.