The 1980s in the United States were a period of political transformation, particularly within the judicial and legal spheres. This decade, fueled by the conservative movement under President Ronald Reagan, saw two key Attorneys General, William French Smith and Edwin Meese, wield the power of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to fundamentally alter American law and society. Their combined efforts shifted the U.S. legal landscape in ways that still resonate today, from the rise of constitutional originalism to the intensification of the War on Drugs and the expansion of executive power.
These men were not merely administrators; they were active participants in an ideological revolution. Smith and Meese approached their roles with distinct but complementary goals: reducing federal regulation, curtailing civil rights enforcement, promoting judicial conservatism, and restructuring the criminal justice system. By the time the decade ended, their legacies were set in stone, marking the 1980s as a turning point in American legal history.
William French Smith (1981–1985): The Silent Reformer
William French Smith, Reagan’s first Attorney General, might not have sought the spotlight, but his actions had a profound, lasting impact. Smith was a strategic and disciplined legal technocrat who laid the foundation for deregulation and a shift away from federal intervention in both the economy and social policy.
The Drive for Deregulation and Limited Government
Smith’s approach to law was built on the belief that the federal government had become too intrusive in the lives of individuals and businesses. At the heart of his agenda was deregulation—specifically reducing the role of federal oversight in areas like antitrust law and corporate governance. He subscribed to the economic theories of the Chicago School, most notably the “consumer welfare” theory put forth by Judge Robert Bork. According to this theory, antitrust laws should focus not on promoting competition for its own sake but rather on ensuring that consumers benefited from lower prices (essentially letting monopolies thrive if they provided cheaper products). This radical rethinking of economic oversight diminished the government’s role in protecting smaller businesses from corporate giants.
Under Smith, the DOJ withdrew from aggressive antitrust enforcement, laying the groundwork for massive corporate consolidations in the 1980s. For example, Smith’s hands-off approach contributed to the telecommunications mergers that resulted in the dominance of companies like AT&T. While Smith saw deregulation as a restoration of individual liberty, critics argue that it also enabled the unchecked rise of corporate monopolies, a trend whose full effects would become visible decades later, particularly in the tech industry.
Civil Rights: Quietly Undermining Federal Enforcement
Although Smith did not publicly frame his policies as a rollback of civil rights, his tenure marked a distinct retreat from the proactive federal enforcement seen in previous decades. Smith, like many conservatives of the era, believed that the DOJ had overextended its role in civil rights enforcement. During his time as Attorney General, the DOJ became less involved in large-scale desegregation efforts, especially in schools. He worked to limit federal intervention in local school districts, arguing that it was up to local authorities to manage their own desegregation processes—a stark reversal of federal policy under the Warren Court.
By narrowing the DOJ’s focus on civil rights violations to clear-cut instances of overt discrimination, Smith’s tenure effectively dismantled many of the institutional supports for affirmative action and systemic desegregation programs. This led to a shift in the national conversation around civil rights, from combating structural inequality to focusing on individual cases, thus weakening broader reform efforts.
The Rise of Judicial Conservatism
Perhaps Smith’s most far-reaching contribution came in the form of his influence on judicial appointments. Working closely with Reagan, Smith was pivotal in selecting federal judges who embraced a more restrained interpretation of the Constitution. This era marked the beginning of the rise of originalism—the theory that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written. Smith helped lay the intellectual foundation for originalism by promoting judges who would favor limited federal power and a more textualist approach to interpreting laws.
Smith’s influence can be seen in the appointment of figures like Antonin Scalia, who would go on to become one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in promoting originalism. The seeds planted by Smith in these judicial appointments would bear fruit for decades to come, fundamentally reshaping American law.
Edwin Meese (1985–1988): The Ideologue and Intellectual Leader
While William French Smith quietly dismantled federal regulatory and civil rights frameworks, Edwin Meese, who succeeded him as Attorney General, took a far more aggressive and public approach to reshaping the American legal system. Meese was an intellectual heavyweight in the conservative movement, and his tenure at the DOJ represents the high-water mark of Reagan-era legal conservatism.
Championing Originalism: A Legal Philosophy Takes Root
More than any other figure in the 1980s, Edwin Meese was responsible for bringing originalism into the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Originalism, as advocated by Meese, held that the only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution was through the lens of its original meaning, as understood by the framers in the late 18th century. Meese believed that the liberal rulings of the Warren Court (1953–1969) and the early Burger Court (1969–1986) had created “new rights” that were not constitutionally grounded. For Meese, this judicial activism needed to be reversed.
In his famous 1985 speech to the American Bar Association, Meese criticized the existing approach to constitutional interpretation as a “jurisprudence of rights,” which he argued was illegitimately expanding individual liberties beyond what the framers intended. He called for a return to the Constitution’s original meaning, particularly in areas such as criminal procedure and civil liberties. This speech was not just a critique; it was a rallying cry for the conservative legal movement.
Under Meese’s guidance, the DOJ submitted briefs to the Supreme Court advocating for originalist interpretations of the Constitution, particularly in high-profile cases involving affirmative action, abortion, and voting rights. Meese’s efforts laid the groundwork for the Federalist Society, an organization that would become instrumental in shaping the judicial appointments of future conservative administrations. The originalist philosophy that Meese championed continues to shape the Court today, influencing landmark decisions such as Citizens United and District of Columbia v. Heller (which reaffirmed Second Amendment rights).
The War on Drugs: Expanding the Carceral State
Meese’s tenure also saw a dramatic escalation of the War on Drugs, a campaign that had begun under President Richard Nixon but reached its zenith during the Reagan administration. Where Smith had laid the foundation for this policy, Meese took it further, viewing drug use not just as a public health issue but as a moral and criminal crisis that required a full-scale response from the federal government.
Meese championed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which introduced harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, particularly those involving crack cocaine. The crack cocaine sentencing guidelines (which mandated far harsher penalties for crack than for powder cocaine) disproportionately impacted African American communities and helped fuel the rise of mass incarceration in the United States. Meese’s DOJ encouraged the use of civil asset forfeiture, allowing law enforcement to seize the property of individuals suspected of drug crimes, often without charging them with a crime.
The policies Meese promoted reshaped American law enforcement, leading to the militarization of police forces and the expansion of federal prisons. The long-term effects of these policies have been profound, with the U.S. now home to the largest prison population in the world. Critics argue that the War on Drugs exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system and contributed to a cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement in many minority communities.
Executive Power: Expanding Presidential Authority
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Meese’s tenure was his defense of executive power, particularly in the context of foreign policy and national security. Meese was a key player in the Iran-Contra Affair, a scandal in which senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran (then under an arms embargo) and funneled the proceeds to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, despite a congressional ban on funding the Contras.
Meese’s involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal highlighted his belief in the unitary executive theory—the idea that the president has near-complete control over the executive branch, with minimal checks from Congress or the courts. Meese conducted an internal investigation into the scandal, which critics argue was more about protecting Reagan’s legacy than uncovering the truth. Although Meese himself was not implicated, his role in downplaying the affair raised serious questions about the limits of executive authority and accountability.
Meese’s defense of executive power, particularly in matters of national security, would influence subsequent administrations, most notably during the George W. Bush presidency, when the executive branch invoked national security to justify controversial practices such as enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless surveillance.
FAQs
1. What is originalism, and how did it shape the judiciary in the 1980s?
Originalism is a legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was written. In the 1980s, Attorneys General William French Smith and Edwin Meese promoted originalism as a way to combat what they saw as judicial activism by earlier courts. This approach influenced judicial appointments, setting the stage for the conservative transformation of the Supreme Court.
2. How did William French Smith impact antitrust regulation?
Smith advocated for a shift in antitrust policy based on the “consumer welfare” theory, which focused on keeping prices low for consumers rather than preserving competition. This led to
a reduction in antitrust enforcement, allowing large corporations to consolidate power, a trend that would shape the corporate landscape for decades.
3. What were the consequences of Edwin Meese’s escalation of the War on Drugs?
Meese’s policies, including mandatory minimum sentences and civil asset forfeiture, contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S., disproportionately affecting African American communities. His approach also led to the militarization of law enforcement and the expansion of federal prisons.
4. How did the Iran-Contra Affair influence the role of executive power?
The Iran-Contra Affair underscored Meese’s belief in the unitary executive theory, which asserts that the president should have broad authority over the executive branch, especially in matters of national security. This expanded view of executive power influenced future administrations, particularly in times of crisis.
5. How did the Reagan-era DOJ approach civil rights enforcement?
Under both Smith and Meese, the DOJ took a more restrained approach to civil rights enforcement. Smith curtailed federal involvement in desegregation efforts, while Meese narrowed the scope of affirmative action and voting rights, reflecting the administration’s broader goal of limiting federal power in social policy.
6. What long-term effects did the 1980s Attorneys General have on today’s legal system?
The judicial appointments made during the 1980s, influenced by Smith and Meese, cemented the rise of originalism in constitutional law, which continues to shape Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, their criminal justice policies contributed to the mass incarceration crisis, and their expansion of executive power remains a contentious issue in U.S. politics.
Conclusion
The Attorneys General of the 1980s—William French Smith and Edwin Meese—were not simply bureaucratic figures implementing policy; they were visionaries who profoundly reshaped the American legal system. Their combined legacies include the promotion of judicial conservatism, the expansion of executive power, the intensification of the War on Drugs, and the restructuring of civil rights enforcement. These transformations have had far-reaching consequences, many of which continue to shape the legal, political, and social landscape of the United States today. Understanding their impact is essential for anyone seeking to comprehend the ideological battles that continue to define American law and governance.
