Constitutional Law Dissenting Opinions Department of Justice State Law Justice Department Government Law Judicial Review Legal Experts Attorney General Civil Rights Government Advisors Judicial Authority Administrative Law European Law Judicial Independence Government Regulations Government Appointments Conflict of Interest Use of Force Judicial Decisions Military Law International Law Expert Commentary Senior Judges Gender Equality Conservative Justices DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel Government Officials Public Statements Government Legality Supreme Court Judicial Dissent Political Commentary Judges' Perspectives Government Orders Antiquities Act U.S. Justice Department Environmental Law Gambling Law Judicial Activism Binding Nature of Opinions Legal Analysis Attorney General Opinions Discrimination Law Judicial Opinions Executive Orders Social Benefits Free Speech Caste Law Constitutional Structure Justice Sonia Sotomayor Dissent U.S. Department of Justice Public Figures Political Law Clemency Powers Knesset Office of Legal Counsel Ministry of Justice Authority in Investigations Military Legislation Advisory Opinions Government Legal Advice Government Legislation Government Transparency Government Legal Advisors Healthcare Law Abortion Law Constitutional Issues Political Misuse Court Orders Transgender Rights State Laws Civil Rights Law Justice Alito Advocacy Justice Kagan Hunter Biden's Gun Trial Judges' Dissents Constitutional Interpretation Construction Law Authority Exceedance Expert Analysis Political Endorsements Supreme Court Rulings Legal Analysts Interrogation Techniques Prosecutorial Conduct Cryptocurrency Law Chief Justices Legal Scholars Presidential Powers Executive Actions Government Ethics High Court of Justice Clients Corporate Law Alabama Supreme Court
The advisory opinion carries no legal force, leaving targeted programs unchanged for now.
