# Government nepotism law origin -- Fake News **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 10, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810 "2017-01-10T14:17:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/1 "2017-01-10T14:17:14Z")
Several months ago, and more recently over the past few days, since Trump has announced that he plans to appoint his son-in-law as a special advisor to the administration, the federal government anti-nepotism law has been brought up as a roadblock…and then news agencies have been claiming that it was enacted in response to JFK’s appointment of RFK as attorney general. FALSE. I personally believe that Trump’s appointment of Jared Kushner as an on-staff advisor to the administration is stupid and a mistake. He’s not qualified. If Trump wants his son-in-law’s advice, he just call him and get it, there’s no need for him to be on staff…much like HRC wasn’t on Bill Clinton’s staff during his administration. But the claim that the nepotism law was enacted in response to RFK’s appointment is just wrong. > **[Chicago Tribune: Chicago news, sports, weather, entertainment - Chicago Tribune](https://www.chicagotribune.com)** > > Chicago Tribune From the Chicago Tribune article after the bill was passed, the author of the bill Rep. Neal Smith, D-Iowa, claims that it was about postmasters across the country hiring their relatives to lucrative civil service jobs. The article does mention that one of the consequences of the bill was that JFK would have been prevented from hiring RFK, but again the motive behind the bill was postmasters. Mundane and somewhat pointless, but I wanted to share. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/2 "2017-01-10T14:39:44Z")
I thought the restriction was only on whom could be put in his cabinet. Is that not right? So both JFK and Don would easily skirt that restriction, I should think. Ivanka and husband are now de facto Pres and First Lady, I suspect. They will live in DC, she will play First Lady and they’ll both sit in on all the meetings. And when Don’s in NYC, (most always) they’ll be actually running the show! And Don will just provide distraction, and lots of it, stirring up shit storms on twitter and grabbing headlines. Fanning racist flames every chance he gets, I suspect. And I’m not seeing that there is anything anyone can do to stop them, to be honest. And he’s just laying the table, right now, this is all just the starter course. It’s gonna be a wild ride, that’s for sure! ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/3 "2017-01-10T14:50:43Z")
[Here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110)’s the actual law, which reads, “A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.” The law is _not_ limited to the Cabinet. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/4 "2017-01-10T15:03:38Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > But the claim that the nepotism law was enacted in response to RFK’s appointment is just wrong. > > [Chicago Tribune - Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Business & Things to Do](http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1967/12/24/page/7/article/iowans-anti-nepotism-bill-puts-crimp-in-old-u-s-habit) > > From the Chicago Tribune article after the bill was passed, the author of the bill Rep. Neal Smith, D-Iowa, claims that it was about postmasters across the country hiring their relatives to lucrative civil service jobs. The article does mention that one of the consequences of the bill was that JFK would have been prevented from hiring RFK, but again the motive behind the bill was postmasters. You make a good point, but I think it is generally difficult to ascribe one rationale for any particular law. While this congressman may have been thinking of postmasters when he wrote the bill, there are 534 other members of Congress who voted on it who may have had other reasons. I think it is reasonable to believe that quite a few of them may have been thinking of the RFK situation. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/5 "2017-01-10T15:04:49Z")
Thanks for the info! But if it’s an actual law, not a custom, how is Don getting his Son In Law and daughter on his staff? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/6 "2017-01-10T15:24:10Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Thanks for the info! > > But if it’s an actual law, not a custom, how is Don getting his Son In Law and daughter on his staff? The claim is the White House/President is not an agency. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/7 "2017-01-10T15:35:15Z")
And in fact during Bill Clinton’s administration, he appointed Hillary to a task force on health care reform. It was challenged via a lawsuit, and the court ruled that the law didn’t apply to the Office of the President. The judge even wrote, “So, for example, a president would be barred from appointing his brother as attorney general, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant.” (See [here](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/997/997.F2d.898.93-5092.93-5086.html).) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/8 "2017-01-10T18:56:07Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > And in fact during Bill Clinton’s administration, he appointed Hillary to a task force on health care reform. It was challenged via a lawsuit, and the court ruled that the law didn’t apply to the Office of the President. The judge even wrote, “So, for example, a president would be barred from appointing his brother as attorney general, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant.” (See [here](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/997/997.F2d.898.93-5092.93-5086.html).) Wasn’t the fact that her appointment was to an unpaid position factor into their decision? ---
**Author:** ![Me\_Billy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Me\_Billy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Me_Billy)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/9 "2017-01-12T17:07:30Z")
Actually having his son-in-law at his side might be a good thing! From what I have read and as we all know, Trump is dysfunctional, no empathy, etc. HE DOES NOT KNOW how to deal with other people. He needs someone to keep him out of trouble - because he can’t do that on his own. So I would see someone like his son-in-law as a “Nancy Reagan” type who will be the “real” President. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/10 "2017-01-12T17:23:43Z")
> [@Me\_Billy](#): > > Actually having his son-in-law at his side might be a good thing! > > From what I have read and as we all know, Trump is dysfunctional, no empathy, etc. HE DOES NOT KNOW how to deal with other people. He needs someone to keep him out of trouble - because he can’t do that on his own. > > So I would see someone like his son-in-law as a “Nancy Reagan” type who will be the “real” President. You should do a little checking into this particular “Jiminy Cricket”. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/11 "2017-01-12T18:29:24Z")
> [@Me\_Billy](#): > > Actually having his son-in-law at his side might be a good thing! > > From what I have read and as we all know, Trump is dysfunctional, no empathy, etc. HE DOES NOT KNOW how to deal with other people. He needs someone to keep him out of trouble - because he can’t do that on his own. > > So I would see someone like his son-in-law as a “Nancy Reagan” type who will be the “real” President. As you know in your reality. Jared’s a smart dude; he impacted the campaign in significant, meaningful ways. Leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/12 "2017-01-12T21:00:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Wasn’t the fact that her appointment was to an unpaid position factor into their decision? It was not a factor. They do mention the unpaid status later, but the actual reasoning they supply is that the President’s immediate office is not an agency within the meaning of the law: > [@](#): > > The President’s implicit authority to enlist his spouse in aid of the discharge of his federal duties also undermines appellees’ claim that treating the President’s spouse as an officer or employee would violate the anti-nepotism provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 3110. That section prohibits any “public official” from appointing or employing a relative, such as a spouse, “in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control.” Id. § 3110(b). Although section 3110(a)(1)(A) defines agency as “an executive agency,” we doubt that Congress intended to include the White House or the Executive Office of the President. Cf. Franklin v. Massachusetts, — U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 2775, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992) (holding that President is not “agency” for purposes of Administrative Procedure Act); Meyer, 981 F.2d at 1298 (President’s advisers are not “agency” under FOIA); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282, 289 (D.C.Cir.1991) (President not APA “agency”). So, for example, a President would be barred from appointing his brother as Attorney General, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/13 "2017-01-21T19:45:47Z")
[Justice Department says Trump can legally hire son-in-law Jared Kushner](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-jared-kushner-work-in-the-white-house-justice-department/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=33642183) …federal law also authorizes the president “to appoint and fix the pay of 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.” “The most natural and straightforward reading of [the law is] the President may appoint relatives as employees in the White House Office ‘without regard to’ the anti-nepotism statute,” the OLC concluded. The OLC said the federal law is intended to give the president “broad discretion” in hiring White House employees. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-nepotism-law-origin-fake-news/776810/14 "2017-01-22T03:51:23Z")
Ya know, the whole “buh-buh-buh it’s legal so nobody can question whether it is wise!” tactic should have gone out with Hillary having a private email server. Especially when the folks who won the election wouldn’t shut up about it.