Eric Holder Jr.’s time as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States is a chapter in U.S. history that intertwines ambition, pragmatism, and moral complexity. Serving from 2009 to 2015 under President Obama, Holder was not simply a technocrat following the protocols of the Department of Justice (DOJ); he was an ideological figure, pushing boundaries and fighting for justice while also grappling with the constraints of institutional power. His story is one of ambition tempered by reality, of progressive reforms complicated by political and legal limitations. A deeper dive into Holder’s tenure reveals a figure who was caught at the intersection of civil rights, national security, and financial accountability—each issue reflecting the larger tensions shaping American democracy.
Holder’s Moral Compass: Shaping the DOJ into a Vehicle for Social Justice
From the outset, Holder’s vision for the DOJ went beyond standard law enforcement. His understanding of justice was not confined to the neutral application of statutes but was steeped in an acute awareness of history—especially America’s long struggle with racial inequality.
Holder believed in the law as a moral force, capable of addressing deep-rooted societal issues. His infamous 2009 speech, in which he called the U.S. “a nation of cowards” for avoiding discussions about race, wasn’t just rhetoric; it was a signal of his broader intention to make the DOJ an active participant in addressing America’s historical injustices. Holder saw the law not as a static framework, but as a dynamic tool for promoting equity, particularly for marginalized groups who had long been excluded from the full promise of American democracy.
In his fight for civil rights, Holder placed a special emphasis on voting rights. The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder dealt a significant blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, dismantling the preclearance requirement (a provision requiring states with a history of racial discrimination to seek federal approval before changing voting laws). Holder recognized the ruling as part of a broader historical pattern: after every period of racial progress, there came a backlash designed to suppress Black political power. His DOJ fought aggressively against newly enacted voter ID laws and other restrictions, which he saw as attempts to disenfranchise minority voters.
However, these legal battles, while essential, also highlighted the limitations of the DOJ’s power. Even the might of the federal government wasn’t enough to fully counteract the onslaught of state-level voting restrictions that followed the Shelby decision. Holder’s efforts to protect voting rights were significant, but they also underscored the difficulty of implementing large-scale reforms in a fragmented political landscape.
Confronting the Financial Sector: The Dilemma of Accountability
The 2008 financial crisis, which devastated the global economy and left millions of Americans jobless and homeless, cast a long shadow over Holder’s tenure. For many, there was a widespread expectation that President Obama’s administration—and by extension, Holder’s DOJ—would bring Wall Street executives to justice for their role in causing the meltdown.
Holder’s DOJ did secure multibillion-dollar settlements from financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which were implicated in the widespread use of predatory lending practices and securities fraud. However, Holder’s failure to criminally prosecute high-ranking banking executives became a focal point of criticism. His statement in 2013—that some financial institutions were “too big to jail”—sparked outrage among those who felt that Wall Street had effectively become immune from the consequences of its actions.
But this failure to prosecute wasn’t simply a matter of reluctance or lack of will. It reflects the broader structural challenges facing modern law enforcement in an era of global finance. The legal framework governing financial crime is complex, often opaque, and ill-equipped to deal with the sophisticated financial instruments and global transactions involved in the crisis. Proving criminal intent at the highest levels of corporate leadership, where decisions are diffused across layers of bureaucracy and legal counsel, is notoriously difficult. Holder’s decision to pursue settlements rather than prosecutions speaks to the profound limitations of the existing legal tools available to hold corporate power accountable.
That said, Holder’s handling of the financial crisis raises crucial questions about the balance between pragmatism and justice. By choosing not to pursue criminal prosecutions, Holder may have preserved financial stability, but the perception that Wall Street got off lightly damaged the credibility of the DOJ in the eyes of the public. It also highlighted a broader challenge for the American legal system: how can it effectively regulate and prosecute corporate actors in an era of increasingly global and complex financial markets?
The Legal Boundaries of Counterterrorism: A New Era of Warfare
Holder’s tenure also saw the continuation and expansion of America’s post-9/11 national security policies, including the controversial use of drone strikes against suspected terrorists. These strikes, particularly those targeting U.S. citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki, raised profound constitutional and ethical questions. Al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric tied to al-Qaeda, was killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen without a trial—a decision that remains one of the most controversial aspects of Holder’s career.
The legal rationale provided by Holder for the drone strike on al-Awlaki was rooted in the Obama administration’s belief that the War on Terror necessitated a new understanding of imminent threats. Al-Awlaki was not just a propagandist but an operational leader actively involved in planning attacks against the U.S., Holder argued. In this context, the administration claimed that lethal force was justified under the principles of self-defense.
However, this argument has been heavily scrutinized for its implications on due process and the expansion of executive power. The decision to target an American citizen without trial set a troubling precedent, blurring the lines between battlefield actions and civil rights protections. Holder’s defense of drone strikes reflects the broader post-9/11 legal transformation, in which national security concerns increasingly trump traditional notions of civil liberties.
For Holder, the legal justifications for these actions were necessary in an age of stateless, non-traditional warfare. But his tenure also reveals the uncomfortable trade-offs involved in balancing security and liberty. The expansion of executive authority to conduct drone strikes without oversight from courts or Congress remains a significant and controversial part of his legacy.
The Limits of Institutional Reform: Holder’s Enduring Legacy
Holder’s time as Attorney General was defined by an ambitious vision of justice, one that sought to use the law as a means of addressing systemic inequalities, while also grappling with the constraints of existing legal frameworks and political realities. His tenure is a study in the limitations of institutional reform, particularly in the face of entrenched interests and structural power dynamics.
In the years following his departure from office, Holder continued to advocate for many of the causes he championed as Attorney General, particularly in the realm of voting rights. His work with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee represents a continuation of his commitment to dismantling barriers to political participation for minority communities.
Yet Holder’s legacy is far from simple. His failure to prosecute Wall Street executives, his defense of drone strikes, and the persistence of voter suppression despite his efforts all reflect the profound challenges facing any public official who seeks to bring about meaningful change within a deeply entrenched system. Holder was, in many ways, a product of the very institutions he sought to reform—a man of principle navigating the messy realities of governance.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was Eric Holder’s role in the Shelby County v. Holder decision?
Holder vehemently opposed the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that dismantled a key section of the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ, under his leadership, took aggressive legal action to challenge states that enacted restrictive voting laws in its wake, but ultimately faced limitations in reversing these state-level decisions.
2. Why did Eric Holder say some banks were “too big to jail”?
In a 2013 Senate hearing, Holder explained that prosecuting large financial institutions could have destabilized the global economy. His statement reflected the challenge of holding financial giants accountable without causing broader harm to the economy.
3. What legal justification did Holder provide for drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens?
Holder defended drone strikes as necessary under the doctrine of self-defense, particularly when it came to figures like Anwar al-Awlaki, who were seen as operational leaders in terrorist organizations posing imminent threats. The administration argued that capture wasn’t feasible and that these actions were legally justified under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
4. Why didn’t Holder prosecute high-ranking bankers after the 2008 financial crisis?
While the DOJ secured massive settlements from financial institutions, prosecuting individual executives proved difficult due to the complexity of modern finance and the challenge of proving intent. Holder’s decision reflected the structural limits of existing laws to hold corporate leadership accountable.
5. How did Eric Holder’s DOJ address police reform?
Holder’s DOJ conducted pattern-or-practice investigations into police departments, most notably in Ferguson, Missouri, after the killing of Michael Brown. These investigations exposed systemic racial biases and led to reforms, but long-term changes to policing practices remain a challenge.
6. What did Eric Holder do after leaving the DOJ?
After leaving office, Holder became a leading advocate for redistricting reform and voting rights, particularly through his work with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. He has remained a vocal critic of voter suppression and gerrymandering.
7. What is the significance of Holder’s tenure as the first African American Attorney General?
Holder’s tenure marked a historic milestone for diversity in the U.S. government, but his legacy is defined by more than just symbolism. His commitment to civil rights and social justice reshaped the DOJ’s priorities, making the institution a more active player in fighting systemic racism and protecting voting rights.
Conclusion
Eric Holder Jr.’s tenure as
Attorney General was emblematic of the complexities of American justice and governance. His bold vision for the DOJ as a force for civil rights and equity was tempered by the limitations of the legal system and the pressures of political pragmatism. Holder’s work—both in advancing civil rights and confronting national security challenges—offers a nuanced portrait of a man who, despite his best efforts, could not escape the contradictions inherent in wielding power within a flawed system.
As future generations reflect on his legacy, they will see in Holder both the promise and the frustration of American democracy—its potential for reform and its resistance to change. His tenure reminds us that the pursuit of justice is often as much about confronting the limits of power as it is about exercising it.
