The role of the Attorney General (AG) is one of the most crucial in any administration, acting as the legal backbone of the federal government. During Barack Obama’s presidency, two attorneys general—Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch—held this office and left profound, albeit contested, legacies. Their leadership shaped America’s legal landscape at a time of immense social, racial, and economic turmoil, grappling with issues ranging from civil rights to financial accountability. Understanding their legacies requires delving into not just the policies they promoted, but the structural, political, and social challenges they encountered.
Eric Holder: Between Reformist Ambition and Structural Constraints
1. Voting Rights and the Battle Against Modern Disenfranchisement
Eric Holder, the first African American Attorney General, viewed voting rights not as a legal issue alone, but as a moral imperative connected to America’s ongoing racial struggles. His tenure coincided with a systematic rollback of voting protections that had been secured during the Civil Rights Movement. His challenge to restrictive voter ID laws—especially in Texas and North Carolina—was based on the understanding that these laws disproportionately impacted Black and Latino communities, mirroring the Jim Crow legacy of disenfranchisement.
Holder’s most famous legal battle—Shelby County v. Holder (2013)—illustrates his mission and the limitations of federal intervention. Before this case, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandated that states with a history of racial discrimination had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. This provision was a critical safeguard, ensuring that states wouldn’t pass laws that disproportionately hurt minority voters. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 5 dealt a devastating blow to Holder’s agenda, emboldening states to implement more restrictive voting laws. While Holder responded by filing lawsuits against individual states, his defeat in Shelby County underscored the limits of legalism in a shifting political environment that increasingly favored state sovereignty over federal oversight.
It’s important to remember that this struggle did not occur in a vacuum. Holder’s efforts were deeply tied to a larger historical narrative. From the Reconstruction Era to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, African Americans have experienced periods of enfranchisement followed by violent or legislative backlash. Holder understood this cycle, and his fight to preserve federal protections for minority voters was an attempt to prevent history from repeating itself. Yet, his failure in Shelby County illustrated the complex and often slow-moving nature of legal battles in a deeply divided political landscape.
Citation: The impact of Shelby County v. Holder and its connection to modern voter suppression has been explored in depth by voting rights experts such as Carol Anderson in One Person, No Vote (2018).
2. Criminal Justice Reform and the War on Drugs: A Delayed Reckoning
Holder’s most significant contribution to American law came with his Smart on Crime initiative, which sought to reform harsh sentencing practices that had disproportionately affected minorities, particularly under the War on Drugs. His push to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses was a direct response to decades of mass incarceration, a policy framework that, ironically, had been supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1980s.
Holder acknowledged that the War on Drugs, which had been touted as a means to curb crime, disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities, further entrenching cycles of poverty and criminality. His reform efforts aimed to shift away from punitive approaches and focus on rehabilitation (the process of reintegrating offenders into society), especially for those convicted of low-level drug offenses.
But Holder’s reforms were introduced relatively late in his tenure. By then, the system of mass incarceration had been deeply institutionalized, and his efforts—though transformative—could only chip away at the larger punitive machinery. Critics from the left argued that Holder didn’t act fast enough, especially when it came to pardoning or commuting the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders. However, despite these criticisms, Holder’s reforms laid the groundwork for later bipartisan criminal justice reform, such as the First Step Act of 2018 under the Trump administration.
Optimizing Complex Information: The War on Drugs refers to a set of policies that began in the 1970s aimed at reducing illegal drug trade. However, these policies often resulted in harsher punishments, particularly for minority communities, leading to over-incarceration.
Citation: For a detailed analysis of the War on Drugs and its racial impact, see Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow (2010), which provides crucial context for understanding the failures of the American criminal justice system.
3. Wall Street Accountability: Too Big to Jail?
Holder’s tenure was marked by a significant tension when it came to financial regulation. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Holder’s DOJ prosecuted major banks, securing record settlements. Yet, his failure to prosecute individual executives for their roles in the financial collapse became one of the most contentious parts of his legacy. Many saw these settlements as symbolic victories—they addressed corporate malfeasance but allowed the individuals responsible to avoid accountability.
Holder famously remarked in 2013 that some financial institutions might be “too big to jail,” meaning that prosecuting them could destabilize the global economy. This statement, while pragmatic, reinforced the perception that Wall Street operates under a different set of rules than ordinary citizens. Critics pointed out that while millions of Americans lost their homes and livelihoods in the crisis, the architects of the collapse largely went unpunished.
Holder’s decisions reflected a fundamental dilemma faced by the Obama administration: how to balance economic stability with justice. While financial settlements reached by the DOJ were significant, they were ultimately seen as insufficient by those who believed the financial industry needed a deeper reckoning.
Enhancing Practical Guidance: To hold financial institutions accountable, the public can advocate for reforms such as stronger regulations on large banks, clearer oversight from bodies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the elimination of corporate lobbying power over financial laws.
Citation: For more on the “too big to jail” phenomenon and its repercussions, see Matt Taibbi’s The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap (2014).
Loretta Lynch: Navigating Justice in a Polarized America
1. The Police and Civil Rights: The Ferguson Effect
When Lynch became Attorney General in 2015, she inherited a Justice Department still grappling with the national unrest caused by police shootings of unarmed Black men and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. Lynch continued Holder’s aggressive use of consent decrees (court-enforced agreements between the DOJ and local police departments) to reform police departments that had been found guilty of systemic misconduct.
Lynch’s DOJ released damning reports on cities like Baltimore and Chicago, revealing long-standing patterns of racial bias, excessive force, and lack of accountability within their police forces. But consent decrees, while effective in holding police departments accountable, became politically controversial. Law enforcement agencies and police unions pushed back against federal intervention, framing it as overreach.
Under Lynch, the tension between local police autonomy and federal oversight came to a head. Conservative critics argued that these decrees hindered the ability of police to effectively maintain law and order. This political friction highlighted a fundamental debate about the nature of federal power in addressing systemic injustice at the local level, especially as “The Ferguson Effect” (the claim that increased scrutiny of police after Ferguson had led to rising crime rates) became a rhetorical weapon used against reform efforts.
Optimizing Complex Information: A consent decree is a legal agreement that requires an institution, like a police department, to change its policies under court supervision. These agreements are used when federal investigations uncover unconstitutional practices.
2. The Clinton Email Scandal: Political Calculations
Lynch’s role in the 2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation was perhaps the most politically explosive moment of her tenure. After meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport in the middle of the investigation, Lynch found herself in the midst of a firestorm. Though she and Clinton insisted the conversation was casual, the optics were politically disastrous, leading Lynch to publicly declare that she would defer to the FBI on the investigation’s outcome.
This decision to step back and allow FBI Director James Comey to make public declarations about the investigation had far-reaching consequences. Comey’s decision to reopen the investigation just days before the 2016 election may have altered its outcome, sparking accusations from Democrats that the DOJ had inadvertently contributed to Clinton’s defeat. Lynch’s effort to remain neutral ultimately highlighted the perils of political calculation in a hyper-partisan environment. Her actions during this scandal reflect the immense difficulty of leading the DOJ in an era of increasing political polarization, where any appearance of bias can have serious national implications.
Citation: A comprehensive examination of Lynch’s role in the 2016 election and the email investigation can be found in Ron Chernow’s A Higher Loyalty (2018).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: Why did Eric Holder’s efforts in voting rights protection fail in the long term?
A1: Holder’s voting rights efforts faced major setbacks due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened federal oversight, allowing states to enact restrictive voting laws, especially in Southern states with histories of racial discrimination.
Q2: How did Loretta Lynch’s use of consent decrees impact police reform?
A2: Consent decrees
allowed the DOJ to enforce reforms in police departments found guilty of unconstitutional practices. These reforms included implementing body cameras and improving de-escalation training. However, they became politically controversial, with critics arguing that federal oversight undermined local police autonomy.
Q3: Why didn’t Holder prosecute more Wall Street executives after the financial crisis?
A3: Holder argued that prosecuting large financial institutions and their executives could destabilize the economy, as many were too interconnected with global markets. Critics contend that this approach allowed corporate executives responsible for the crisis to escape accountability.
Q4: What is the significance of the War on Drugs in Eric Holder’s criminal justice reforms?
A4: The War on Drugs, which led to mass incarceration, disproportionately affected minorities. Holder’s reforms sought to reduce harsh sentencing for nonviolent drug offenses and shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, marking a significant shift in federal criminal justice policy.
Q5: How did Loretta Lynch handle the Clinton email investigation?
A5: After a controversial meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation, Lynch chose to defer to the FBI to avoid the appearance of bias. This decision led to FBI Director James Comey publicly commenting on the investigation, which some believe influenced the 2016 election.
Conclusion
The legacies of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are emblematic of the Obama administration’s broader struggle to reconcile ambitious reformist agendas with the structural, legal, and political realities of the American system. Both sought to use the Department of Justice as a force for addressing entrenched inequalities—whether in the form of voter disenfranchisement, over-policing, or corporate power—but were constrained by judicial decisions, bureaucratic inertia, and the political climate. Their tenure speaks to the inherent difficulty of enacting deep, systemic change within the confines of the U.S. legal and political system—a challenge that continues to define American governance today.
