The role of the U.S. Attorney General (AG) stands at a unique crossroads of law, politics, and executive power. As the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the AG must simultaneously serve the President and enforce the law impartially, making their role both influential and, at times, perilous. Over time, former AGs have shaped the nation’s legal frameworks, contributed to its most profound crises, and left lasting legacies that continue to shape the balance between law, politics, and civil liberties.
The Paradox of the Office: Loyalty vs. Independence
The Attorney General’s office, while statutory, is in many ways a constitutional anomaly. It lacks clear constitutional definition, allowing for flexibility in how different individuals interpret their role. Some AGs view themselves primarily as loyal legal advisors to the President, while others take a more adversarial stance to defend the Constitution against executive overreach. This structural flexibility creates a paradox where the AG must decide whether to act as the President’s lawyer or as the nation’s chief legal enforcer, upholding the Constitution even when it places them in opposition to the executive.
Consider John Mitchell, who served under President Richard Nixon. Mitchell is notorious for his role in the Watergate scandal, where the DOJ was used to target political enemies. His actions—particularly the illegal surveillance and obstruction of justice—exemplified what happens when the Attorney General becomes an instrument of political manipulation. Mitchell’s subsequent conviction for his role in Watergate highlighted the dangers of eroding the DOJ’s independence. This event profoundly damaged the public’s trust in both the Attorney General’s office and the broader U.S. legal system.
Post-Watergate Reforms and the Evolution of Power
In the aftermath of Watergate, reforms aimed to restore the integrity of the DOJ. The creation of mechanisms like the Office of Professional Responsibility and the increased use of independent counsel were meant to insulate the DOJ from political interference. Yet, this period also revealed how such reforms could become tools of partisanship themselves.
Edwin Meese, who served as AG under President Ronald Reagan, embodied this complexity. Meese advocated for conservative interpretations of the Constitution and was instrumental in shaping the Reagan administration’s “law and order” policies. He expanded federal powers in the war on drugs and pushed for mandatory minimum sentencing laws that disproportionately affected minority communities. While some viewed Meese as a defender of judicial restraint, his policies also contributed to the mass incarceration crisis that continues to affect the U.S. today.
The tension between restoring the DOJ’s legitimacy and advancing political objectives became even more apparent during Alberto Gonzales’ tenure under President George W. Bush. Gonzales justified the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”—widely regarded as torture—during the War on Terror. By interpreting U.S. legal obligations under international law narrowly, Gonzales authorized practices that deeply undermined U.S. credibility abroad and eroded civil liberties at home. His tenure illustrates how legal justifications for executive actions, particularly in times of crisis, can have far-reaching implications for civil rights and the rule of law.
The Rise of the Imperial Presidency and the Barr Doctrine
Perhaps no recent AG exemplifies the modern-day struggle between executive power and legal independence more than William Barr, particularly during his second tenure under President Donald Trump. Barr’s interpretation of the unitary executive theory (a constitutional theory advocating that all executive authority is vested solely in the President) led him to argue that the President should have near-absolute immunity from legal scrutiny. His actions regarding the Mueller Report on Russian election interference—summarizing its findings in a way that critics claimed was misleading—highlighted how an AG can use legal interpretations to protect the executive from accountability.
Barr’s approach wasn’t novel. His 2018 memo to the DOJ, prior to assuming office, laid out his views on presidential power, arguing that the President should not be subject to investigations that could impede executive functions. This view played out during his handling of the Mueller investigation, when Barr cleared Trump of any wrongdoing before the full report was made public. His actions sparked a broader debate about whether the DOJ was still capable of operating as a check on the executive branch or if it had become a political tool under Barr’s leadership. The concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, combined with Barr’s robust defense of presidential authority, raised alarms about the erosion of checks and balances.
This period also saw the DOJ’s reputation for impartiality questioned, with many Americans coming to view the department as a politically compromised institution. Barr’s decision to intervene in cases involving Trump associates, such as Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, fueled these perceptions, revealing the dangers of an AG acting as a legal shield for the President. As this crisis of trust deepened, so too did concerns about the future of democratic governance, where the rule of law might be subordinated to political expediency.
Civil Rights and the Attorney General’s Role in Justice Reform
Not all Attorneys General have prioritized executive authority over broader social justice issues. Eric Holder, who served under President Barack Obama, made civil rights a central pillar of his tenure. As the first African American AG, Holder was committed to fighting voter suppression and reversing decades of discriminatory sentencing laws. His DOJ brought lawsuits against states that passed restrictive voting laws following the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision, which weakened federal oversight of state elections. Holder also spearheaded criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing mandatory minimum sentences and addressing racial disparities in drug-related offenses.
Yet, even Holder’s tenure was not without controversy. His involvement in the expansion of the drone strike program and the use of targeted killings in counterterrorism efforts raised ethical questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties. Holder’s efforts to reform sentencing laws and fight voter suppression were significant, but they occurred alongside policies that extended executive power in ways that many argued threatened fundamental civil rights.
The challenges faced by Holder—balancing civil rights and national security, addressing systemic racism while upholding federal authority—highlight the complex ethical terrain that AGs must navigate. Their decisions shape the legal landscape for years, if not decades, and have a lasting impact on public perceptions of justice and fairness in the U.S. legal system.
The Future of the Attorney General’s Office in a Polarized America
As America becomes increasingly polarized, the role of the Attorney General will only grow in importance. AGs will continue to be at the forefront of critical national debates, from voting rights and criminal justice reform to the balance between privacy and national security. Former AGs’ legacies serve as crucial case studies in the importance of maintaining the DOJ’s independence, even as it faces political pressure from the executive branch.
One of the key lessons from past AGs is that the balance between loyalty to the President and commitment to the rule of law is delicate, and when that balance tips too far in favor of one over the other, the consequences for democratic governance can be severe. The actions of figures like Mitchell, Barr, Meese, Gonzales, and Holder illustrate that the role of the AG is not static—it evolves in response to political, legal, and social forces. Understanding these historical trajectories is essential for evaluating the future of the Attorney General’s office and its role in safeguarding the nation’s democratic institutions.
FAQs
1. Why is the role of the Attorney General so important?
The Attorney General serves as the head of the Department of Justice and is responsible for enforcing federal law, ensuring legal accountability, and upholding the Constitution. Given their proximity to the President, AGs play a critical role in balancing executive power with legal independence, making their decisions crucial for maintaining the rule of law in a democracy.
2. What is the unitary executive theory?
The unitary executive theory is a constitutional interpretation that argues all executive power is vested solely in the President, meaning the President has control over the entire executive branch, including law enforcement. Critics argue this theory can lead to abuses of power by insulating the President from legal accountability.
3. How did William Barr’s tenure as AG affect the DOJ?
Barr’s second tenure as AG under Trump was marked by his strong defense of executive authority. His handling of the Mueller Report and interventions in cases involving Trump associates raised concerns about the politicization of the DOJ and its capacity to act as an impartial enforcer of the law.
4. What reforms were implemented after the Watergate scandal?
After Watergate, reforms were enacted to restore the DOJ’s independence, including the creation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and increased use of independent counsel. These changes aimed to prevent political interference in law enforcement, though they also raised new challenges related to partisanship.
5. How have AGs influenced civil rights in the U.S.?
Several AGs, including Robert F. Kennedy and Eric Holder, played pivotal roles in advancing civil rights. They used the DOJ to enforce desegregation, protect voting rights, and reform discriminatory sentencing laws. However, these efforts have often been met with resistance, and progress has been slow and incremental.
6. Can the Attorney General refuse to follow a President’s orders?
Yes, the Attorney General can refuse to follow a President’s orders if they believe those orders violate the law or the Constitution. There have been instances where AGs resigned or were fired for refusing to comply with presidential demands they deemed unlawful, as in the case of Elliot Richardson during the Watergate scandal.
7. What is the relationship between the AG and civil liberties?
The AG plays a critical role in defending civil liberties, but this responsibility often conflicts with national security or executive priorities. AGs must balance these competing demands, as seen in controversies over surveillance, targeted killings, and the expansion of executive power post-9/11.
Conclusion
Former Attorneys General have left indelible marks on the legal and political landscape of the United States. Their actions, whether expanding executive power, advancing civil rights, or
defending the rule of law, serve as both examples and warnings for future leaders. In the context of an increasingly polarized society, the role of the Attorney General is more vital than ever in preserving the integrity of democratic institutions and ensuring that justice is served without political interference. As America continues to grapple with questions of power, fairness, and accountability, the legacies of former AGs provide crucial insights into the future of the rule of law.
