This question's context is grounded in the recent history of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis that both parties, the State Department, the President, and it seems ultimately the Library of Congress weighed in on. You can read all about it here in Wikipedia
My question just relates to the role that the Library of Congress played in this incident, a summary of which can be found below from the same Wiki article.
The United States Department of State condemned the ouster of Zelaya and continued to recognise him as the only constitutional president of Honduras. Although US officials characterised the events as a coup, suspended joint military operations on 1 July, suspended all non-emergency, non-immigrant visas, and cut off certain non-humanitarian aid to Honduras, they have held back from formally designating Zelaya's ouster a "military coup", which would require them to cut off almost all aid to Honduras. However, on 24 September, the Law Library of Congress issued a report stating that the Honduran Congress had constitutional power to remove Zelaya from office, but indicating that his expatriation was unconstitutional. On 29 October, LLOC refused to retract the report. The State Department warned the Micheletti government that it might not recognise the results of 29 November elections if Zelaya were not allowed to return to power first, but ultimately recognised the elections at the last second, despite Zelaya not having been returned to power.
The 276 footnote link is broken, but I have reproduced it here.
I am not concerned at all that the report was correct in its conclusions or if the Obama administration was correct in trying to re-instate Zelaya. The report's conclusions seemed dispositive, however, as the administration bent to the conclusions subsequently and changed its position that Zelaya was "Constitutionally" the President of Honduras. However, this change in position may also have been because of the changing fact pattern on the ground as a scheduled election was due to be held.
What I am interested in, ultimately, is what authority did the Library of Congress have that it could produce such a report and was the Obama administration under any onus to respect its conclusions?