Merrick Garland’s tenure as U.S. Attorney General stands as a powerful reflection of the deep institutional, legal, and political challenges facing the United States today. Far from being a neutral steward of justice, Garland has found himself navigating a Justice Department (DOJ) pulled in every direction by opposing political forces. His approach, shaped by decades of dedication to legal procedure and institutional stability, presents both an idealistic commitment to the rule of law and a tactical tightrope walk in an era where political norms are collapsing. This article explores Garland’s career, his handling of pivotal issues like the investigation into Donald Trump, civil rights reforms, and what his approach says about the future of American governance.
Garland’s Institutional Beliefs: Faith in the System or Naïveté?
Merrick Garland’s entire legal philosophy is rooted in a faith in the American legal system—particularly its capacity to operate independently of political interference. This belief has defined his career, starting from his days clerking for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan to his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he was known for his cautious, methodical opinions. Garland’s legal approach can be summarized as one of judicial restraint, a deep-seated conviction that, over time, the institutions of law would prevail as the ultimate arbiter of justice, if only they are left to function properly.
This institutionalism is grounded in historical precedent. The Justice Department, after all, has long served as a bulwark against political corruption, from its role in desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement to its prosecution of Watergate conspirators. But in today’s fractured political landscape, where trust in federal institutions has eroded significantly, Garland’s approach faces a profound test.
His critics—especially on the left—have increasingly viewed this cautious, slow-moving philosophy as outdated. They argue that institutional norms are under direct assault, and by relying on the slow gears of justice to grind, Garland risks allowing grave injustices to go unchecked.
Citation: Historians like Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, argue that the DOJ’s institutional role is shifting under political pressure in unprecedented ways (Zelizer, 2021). Garland’s cautious approach may reflect a belief in the eventual restoration of norms, but it faces immense pressure from a public increasingly skeptical of whether those norms can still operate in a deeply divided country.
The Trump Investigation: Between Accountability and Political Fallout
Garland’s handling of the investigation into Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th Capitol attack and the broader probe into election interference exemplifies the dilemma facing his Justice Department. On one hand, Garland must demonstrate that the rule of law applies to everyone—even a former president. On the other, he faces accusations from Trump’s supporters and the political right that the investigation is politically motivated, a mere extension of “deep state” efforts to sabotage conservative leadership.
Garland has been deliberate in his approach, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation that gathers enough evidence to stand up in court. However, his methodical pace has drawn increasing criticism from those on the left who believe that by moving too slowly, he is effectively enabling Trump to escape accountability. The investigation into Trump’s classified documents has been particularly explosive, leading some to argue that Garland is attempting to avoid the appearance of bias by balancing investigations into both Trump and President Biden, who also faced scrutiny for his handling of classified material from his time as Vice President.
Here, Garland’s dilemma is clear: Any appearance of partisanship in prosecuting Trump could further delegitimize the DOJ, and yet, failing to act decisively would damage the very notion that no one is above the law.
Citation: According to legal experts like Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, “Garland is caught between Scylla and Charybdis—if he indicts, it will be seen as a political hit job, and if he doesn’t, it will be seen as a failure to uphold the rule of law” (Tribe, 2023).
Restoring Civil Rights Protections: The DOJ’s Work on Voting and Policing
Beyond Trump, Garland has taken on critical civil rights issues, focusing on areas like voting rights and police reform—two of the most polarizing subjects in American politics today. Under his leadership, the DOJ has launched investigations into police departments accused of systemic abuses and filed lawsuits challenging restrictive voting laws passed by Republican-led states.
These efforts are particularly important given the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively gutted the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Without this crucial protection, states have passed a wave of voting laws that disproportionately affect minority communities. Garland’s DOJ has sought to challenge these laws, but it faces an uphill battle in courts that have become increasingly conservative.
In the realm of policing, Garland’s DOJ has renewed efforts to investigate police departments with records of civil rights abuses and establish consent decrees—court-enforced agreements that mandate reforms. However, these reforms take years to implement, and they often face resistance from local officials who accuse the federal government of overreach.
While these efforts are significant, some argue they are not enough. Civil rights groups have pushed Garland to be more aggressive, particularly in challenging voter suppression efforts. Others on the right view these efforts as federal overreach, a continuation of the so-called “big government” strategies that they believe encroach on state sovereignty.
Citation: Political scientist Carol Anderson from Emory University notes that “Garland’s efforts, while necessary, are fundamentally reactive, attempting to address issues that are already far advanced. In the case of voting rights, it’s not clear that the DOJ can stop the momentum of state-level disenfranchisement” (Anderson, 2022).
Balancing Principles and Pragmatism: Can Garland Restore Public Trust?
Public trust in the DOJ, like many federal institutions, has been severely eroded in recent years. Garland’s actions—or inactions—are viewed through a political lens that makes it almost impossible for any decision to be universally accepted. His attempt to walk the tightrope between maintaining DOJ’s impartiality and responding to the demands for accountability in the Trump investigations has left him in a difficult position.
Restoring public trust requires not only holding those accountable for wrongdoing, but also doing so in a manner that the public perceives as fair. This balancing act has been one of the most difficult aspects of Garland’s role.
Citation: Scholars of governance, such as Donald Kettl, have emphasized the importance of legitimacy in public institutions. Kettl argues that “once trust is broken, it is incredibly difficult to repair, and Garland’s entire tenure has been marked by this fundamental tension between the appearance of impartiality and the reality of political warfare” (Kettl, 2021).
FAQs
1. Why has Merrick Garland been so cautious in prosecuting Donald Trump?
Garland believes in the importance of upholding the integrity of the Justice Department by avoiding any actions that could be perceived as politically motivated. He is also trying to ensure that any case brought against Trump is airtight, gathering sufficient evidence to withstand both legal scrutiny and public skepticism.
2. How does Garland’s approach to voting rights differ from previous Attorneys General?
Garland has taken a proactive stance on challenging state-level voting restrictions passed after Shelby County v. Holder. However, unlike previous Attorneys General, he is operating in a legal environment where the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are more hostile to federal intervention in state voting laws.
3. What are consent decrees, and how is Garland using them in police reform?
Consent decrees are agreements reached between the DOJ and local police departments, enforced by a federal court, to mandate reforms in policing practices. Garland has reinvigorated the use of these decrees to address systemic abuses in police departments, though implementing these reforms is often a slow and contentious process.
4. Why are people on the left frustrated with Garland’s tenure?
Many on the left feel that Garland has moved too slowly, particularly in prosecuting Donald Trump and challenging restrictive voting laws. They argue that the stakes are too high for Garland’s cautious, institutionally minded approach.
5. What challenges does Garland face in restoring public trust in the DOJ?
Garland’s greatest challenge is restoring public trust in a deeply polarized political environment. Whether prosecuting Trump or defending voting rights, every decision Garland makes is interpreted through a partisan lens, making it difficult for the DOJ to regain its reputation as an impartial enforcer of the law.
6. How does Garland’s handling of police reform compare to past DOJ efforts?
Garland has ramped up investigations into police departments accused of systemic abuses and has sought to reinstate consent decrees that were weakened under the Trump administration. However, the challenges of federal overreach and local resistance make it difficult to achieve immediate, large-scale change.
Conclusion
Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General represents one of the most complex and consequential legal stewardship roles in recent American history. His reliance on institutional norms and a methodical approach reflects a deep faith in the legal system’s ability to self-correct. Yet the unprecedented nature of the challenges he faces—whether from the investigation into Donald Trump, ongoing civil rights battles, or the erosion of public trust in the DOJ—highlights the limitations of such an approach. As the nation continues to grapple with profound divisions, Garland’s ability to maintain the balance between principle and pragmatism will determine not just
his legacy but the future of American governance itself.
