Robert F. Kennedy’s tenure as Attorney General from 1961 to 1964 was a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. Tasked with enforcing federal laws in a time of profound social upheaval, RFK’s role went far beyond traditional legal administration. He transformed the office of Attorney General into a dynamic force for justice, tackling everything from organized crime to racial injustice, while navigating the ever-present pressures of the Cold War. His approach to law, ethics, and power continues to shape the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ) today.
But Kennedy’s legacy is a complex one, laden with contradictions. How did an initially cautious politician come to embody such transformative activism? How did his use of legal force—against both entrenched racism and organized crime—push the boundaries of American law? And what can we learn from his controversial decisions in the context of civil rights, national security, and the limits of federal power?
This article explores these questions in depth, weaving together historical context, political philosophy, and Kennedy’s own evolving understanding of the law.
RFK’s Moral and Legal Balancing Act: Power and Justice
From the outset, Robert F. Kennedy viewed his position through a lens that was both moral and pragmatic. Unlike many previous Attorneys General, RFK understood that the rule of law, while essential, was not sufficient on its own. He had to contend with an entrenched Southern resistance to desegregation, violent opposition to civil rights, and a Mafia whose influence reached into American labor and politics.
But there was a philosophical depth to his role as Attorney General that is often overlooked. RFK embodied a sort of “philosopher-king” approach, reminiscent of Plato’s vision of a ruler who balances moral virtue with the practical necessities of governance. He was constantly wrestling with the question: When does justice require the use of force? And when does the use of force risk undermining the very justice it seeks to uphold?
To appreciate the complexity of this balancing act, one must first consider the chaotic backdrop of the 1960s. It was a time when American society was being pulled in multiple directions—between federal authority and local autonomy, between civil rights and traditional power structures, between liberal reformers and conservative hardliners. RFK’s response to these challenges revealed his belief that the law could, and should, be a tool for profound moral change.
Civil Rights and the Limitations of Legal Power
In the realm of civil rights, RFK’s initial reluctance to engage in direct action mirrored his brother’s cautious political calculations. The Kennedy administration feared alienating Southern Democrats—a powerful voting bloc—by pushing too hard, too fast, on civil rights. But the brutal reality of life in the South for Black Americans soon forced RFK to confront the moral imperative of the civil rights movement.
Perhaps the defining moment of RFK’s transformation from legal pragmatist to civil rights crusader came with the 1962 integration of the University of Mississippi, a confrontation that tested the very limits of federal power. James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran, was admitted to the university following a federal court ruling. But Mississippi’s segregationist governor, Ross Barnett, refused to comply, openly defying federal law.
At this moment, RFK understood that legalism (strict adherence to law) was inadequate in the face of such defiance. The law had already ruled in Meredith’s favor, but without federal force to back it, the ruling was an empty promise. RFK dispatched U.S. Marshals to ensure Meredith’s admission, leading to violent riots that left several people dead. But Meredith entered the university, marking a watershed moment in federal intervention in civil rights.
RFK’s actions here were not without consequence. The violent resistance to Meredith’s admission demonstrated the deeply ingrained power of Southern segregation and the limitations of federal authority when confronted with local hostility. While federal law was upheld, RFK recognized the fragility of such victories. The law, as he saw it, needed to be more than an abstract principle; it needed enforcement, and enforcement often required force.
The Legal Paradox of Federalism: A Fragile Balance
Robert F. Kennedy’s legal philosophy was shaped by the ever-present tension between federalism (a system in which power is divided between the federal government and the states) and the need for universal justice. Southern states, particularly in the 1960s, often invoked federalism as a shield to resist integration and civil rights advancements. RFK’s challenge was to reconcile the principle of states’ rights with the federal government’s responsibility to protect civil liberties.
For RFK, federalism could not be an excuse for state-sanctioned injustice. Yet, he was keenly aware that overstepping the bounds of federal power could erode the legitimacy of the very legal system he sought to protect. This tension was at the heart of RFK’s most important decisions as Attorney General. How could the federal government enforce civil rights in the face of violent resistance, without becoming a coercive, authoritarian force?
While RFK ultimately concluded that federal intervention was necessary, his hesitation in the early years of the civil rights struggle reveals the complexity of this balancing act. His evolution—from cautious enforcer of the law to proactive champion of justice—mirrored the larger transformation of the federal government’s role in American life during the 1960s.
The War on Organized Crime: A Moral Crusade
Simultaneous to his civil rights battles, RFK waged an intense war on organized crime. His campaign against the Mafia was personal—rooted in his earlier work with the Senate Rackets Committee—and driven by a sense of moral outrage at the Mafia’s subversion of American institutions. He saw organized crime not merely as a collection of criminals but as a corrosive force that had infected labor unions, businesses, and politics.
RFK’s anti-Mafia efforts were characterized by an aggressive use of federal resources. He embraced surveillance technologies, wiretapping, and undercover operations to gather evidence against mob leaders like Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello. At times, this pursuit of justice bordered on the ethically questionable. RFK was willing to push legal boundaries to achieve his goals, reflecting a belief that conventional law enforcement methods were inadequate to combat the entrenched power of organized crime.
In this sense, RFK’s legacy is paradoxical. On the one hand, his success in bringing high-profile mobsters to justice reinforced the power of the DOJ. On the other hand, his methods raised important questions about the balance between security and civil liberties—a balance that remains central to debates over government surveillance and the limits of executive power today.
RFK’s Cold War Struggles: Balancing Security and Civil Liberties
The Cold War also had a profound impact on RFK’s tenure as Attorney General. As the United States grappled with the existential threat of communism, the Kennedy administration, like its predecessors, took a hard line on national security. RFK found himself at the crossroads of protecting civil liberties while ensuring national safety.
Despite his progressive stance on civil rights, RFK permitted the FBI—under J. Edgar Hoover’s leadership—to surveil left-wing activists, including Martin Luther King Jr. Hoover viewed the civil rights movement with suspicion, often conflating its goals with communist subversion. RFK’s tacit approval of these surveillance activities demonstrates the complicated nature of Cold War-era law enforcement, where fears of internal threats frequently trumped constitutional protections.
Yet RFK was not fully aligned with Hoover’s extreme measures. He struggled to maintain control over the FBI and balance its counterintelligence activities with respect for civil rights. This conflict between national security and individual freedoms was emblematic of the broader tensions within the Cold War legal landscape. RFK’s decisions, while controversial, underscore the difficult trade-offs faced by policymakers in an era where the line between domestic dissent and foreign threats was often blurred.
FAQs
1. What made Robert F. Kennedy’s tenure as Attorney General so significant?
RFK’s time as Attorney General marked a transformative moment in American law. He used the DOJ not just to enforce existing laws but to challenge deep-rooted injustices, especially around civil rights and organized crime. His tenure expanded the scope of federal power and the moral role of the Attorney General.
2. How did RFK’s approach to civil rights evolve over time?
Initially cautious, RFK’s approach to civil rights shifted as he witnessed the depth of Southern resistance to desegregation and civil rights protections. Over time, he became more proactive, using federal force to uphold court rulings and protect civil rights activists.
3. What role did the FBI play during RFK’s time as Attorney General?
The FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, played a significant and often controversial role. While RFK supported the FBI’s efforts to combat organized crime, he struggled with Hoover’s broad surveillance of civil rights leaders and left-wing activists, which strained the balance between national security and civil liberties.
4. How did RFK approach organized crime, and what were the results?
RFK’s fight against organized crime was characterized by aggressive tactics, including wiretaps and undercover operations. His efforts led to the successful prosecution of several high-profile Mafia figures and significantly weakened organized crime’s influence in the U.S.
5. What challenges did RFK face when balancing national security and civil liberties?
As Attorney General during the Cold War, RFK had to navigate the tension between protecting civil liberties and addressing national security threats. His approval of FBI surveillance of civil rights leaders reflects this delicate balancing act.
6. Why is RFK’s use of federal power in civil rights seen as a turning point?
RFK’s use of federal force to enforce civil rights rulings, such as the integration of the University of Mississippi, represented
a shift in the federal government’s role. It was a clear assertion that the federal government would intervene when states refused to uphold constitutional rights.
7. How did RFK influence the modern role of the Attorney General?
RFK expanded the moral and political reach of the Attorney General’s office, transforming it from a passive legal enforcer into a proactive defender of justice. His tenure set a precedent for future Attorneys General to actively engage in social and political reform.
Conclusion
Robert F. Kennedy’s time as Attorney General was marked by complex, often contradictory forces. He reshaped the office into a vehicle for justice, pushing the limits of federal authority to combat organized crime and enforce civil rights in a divided nation. Yet his tenure also raised important ethical and legal questions about the use of government power—questions that remain relevant today. His legacy, much like the 1960s themselves, is one of transformation, ambition, and deep moral complexity.
