The office of the U.S. Attorney General (AG) is one of the most complex and consequential positions in the American government. Charged with upholding the rule of law while serving as a trusted advisor to the president, the AG often finds themselves caught between conflicting obligations. Over the years, some AGs have become champions of justice, upholding the Constitution even in the face of enormous political pressure. Others have used their power to advance the political goals of the administration, at times compromising legal ethics and undermining public trust in the process.
This article dives deep into the intricate dynamics that define the AG’s role, using real historical examples to illustrate how past Attorneys General have navigated the often perilous waters of power, politics, and legality. From the fiery moral leadership of Robert F. Kennedy to the controversial tenure of William Barr, this exploration shows how the AG’s office is a battleground where the competing interests of law and politics converge.
The Attorney General: Caught Between Two Masters
The Attorney General is uniquely tasked with enforcing federal laws while also advising the president, who appoints them. This makes their position a potential contradiction: how does one uphold the law impartially while serving the interests of the executive branch? This tension often brings the AG into a delicate balance between loyalty to the president and adherence to the law.
As the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the AG oversees the enforcement of federal laws, prosecutes cases of national interest, and ensures justice for the American people. However, the AG also works within the executive branch, advising the president on legal matters. The president’s goals might not always align with strict interpretations of the law, leading to ethical dilemmas that define the office.
In practical terms, this means that the AG must decide where their loyalty lies in moments of crisis—whether to defend the law at the cost of defying the president or to protect the president’s interests even when it means bending legal principles.
Constitutional Guardianship: The Richardson-Ruckelshaus Resignations
One of the most famous moments in the history of the Attorney General’s office that illustrates the potential for constitutional crisis came during the Saturday Night Massacre of October 1973, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned rather than follow President Richard Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Cox had been investigating the Watergate scandal, which was steadily inching closer to the president himself.
When Nixon ordered Cox’s dismissal, Richardson, who had promised Congress that Cox could operate independently, found himself at a crossroads. Resigning rather than violating his promise, Richardson effectively placed the rule of law above loyalty to the president. His deputy, Ruckelshaus, followed suit, resigning for the same reasons.
The firing of Cox by Robert Bork, the Solicitor General who reluctantly complied with Nixon’s order, highlighted the inherent vulnerability of the AG’s office to political manipulation. Although Bork maintained that he was merely following the president’s command, the damage to the public’s trust in the independence of the DOJ was profound.
This episode demonstrated that the office of the Attorney General could become a key player in constitutional confrontations. The resignations of Richardson and Ruckelshaus sent a clear message: an Attorney General must sometimes choose between upholding the law and obeying the president, and that choice can have far-reaching consequences for American governance.
The Darker Side of the Office: John Mitchell and Watergate
In contrast to the principled stance of Richardson and Ruckelshaus, the tenure of John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General from 1969 to 1972, serves as a case study of how the office can be corrupted when the balance between law and politics tips too far in favor of executive loyalty.
Mitchell, who had been Nixon’s campaign manager before becoming Attorney General, oversaw the DOJ with a strong emphasis on “law and order”, a policy that aimed to suppress dissent and reinforce conservative values in response to the civil rights movement and anti-war protests of the 1960s. This strategy wasn’t merely about combating crime; it was a deliberate political tool designed to win over a predominantly white, suburban electorate that feared social change.
Beyond policy, Mitchell’s deep involvement in Nixon’s reelection campaign led him to cross ethical and legal lines. He became entangled in the Watergate scandal, directly contributing to illegal activities like the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up. Mitchell’s role as a political operative compromised his ability to act as an impartial law enforcer, and he was later convicted for his involvement in the Watergate conspiracy, serving 19 months in prison.
Mitchell’s story is a stark reminder of what can happen when the Attorney General places political loyalty above the rule of law. His downfall damaged public faith in the DOJ and set a lasting precedent for how future AGs might grapple with similar pressures from the executive branch.
The Progressive Vision: Eric Holder’s Balancing Act
Eric Holder, who served as Attorney General under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2015, took the office in a different direction, focusing on civil rights, criminal justice reform, and protecting voting rights. Holder, the first African American to hold the position, made tackling racial disparities in the criminal justice system a priority.
One of Holder’s key initiatives was the Smart on Crime policy, which sought to reform sentencing laws, particularly for nonviolent drug offenses, in an effort to combat mass incarceration. This represented a marked shift from the “tough on crime” policies of previous administrations. Holder’s DOJ also aggressively fought against state-level voter ID laws that disproportionately affected minorities, framing voting rights as central to the DOJ’s mission.
However, Holder’s tenure wasn’t without controversy. His defense of the Obama administration’s drone program, which included the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a targeted strike in Yemen, raised significant constitutional concerns. Critics questioned the legality of drone strikes on American citizens without due process. Holder argued that the president had the authority to protect national security by all necessary means, including lethal force, but the decision set a controversial precedent for future uses of executive power.
Holder’s actions reveal the complexity of the Attorney General’s role in modern times: balancing civil rights advocacy and legal reform with the demands of national security, often under the heavy scrutiny of both political allies and opponents.
The Return of Partisan Strife: William Barr and Merrick Garland
More recently, William Barr, who served as Attorney General under Donald Trump, became a flashpoint for critics who argued that he was using the DOJ to shield the president from legal consequences. Barr’s handling of the Mueller Report—particularly his summary, which critics claim downplayed the findings of the special counsel—raised concerns that the office had become a political tool rather than an independent enforcer of the law. His interventions in cases involving Trump allies, such as the reduced sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone and the dropped charges against Michael Flynn, only amplified these concerns.
On the other hand, Merrick Garland, who succeeded Barr under President Joe Biden, has adopted a more cautious and deliberate approach. His efforts to distance the DOJ from political influence reflect a broader attempt to restore public confidence in the office. Garland’s tenure thus far has been defined by a reluctance to pursue investigations into high-profile political figures unless absolutely necessary, demonstrating his commitment to the principle of legal impartiality.
FAQs
Q: What exactly does the Attorney General do?
A: The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. and head of the Department of Justice. They oversee federal prosecutions, enforce federal laws, and represent the government in legal matters. The AG also advises the president on legal issues.
Q: Can the Attorney General refuse to follow the president’s orders?
A: Yes, the Attorney General can refuse orders they believe are illegal or unethical. For example, Elliot Richardson resigned rather than comply with Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during Watergate.
Q: How has the role of the Attorney General changed over time?
A: The role has become more politically charged over time, particularly as presidents increasingly expect the AG to defend their policies and personal interests. However, the AG is also seen as a key protector of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Q: What happens if an Attorney General abuses their power?
A: Abuses of power can lead to legal consequences, as was the case with John Mitchell, who was convicted for his role in the Watergate scandal. Public backlash and congressional investigations can also follow.
Q: How is the Attorney General appointed?
A: The President nominates the Attorney General, but they must be confirmed by the Senate. This process includes hearings where the nominee’s legal views and qualifications are examined.
Q: Can the Attorney General be impeached?
A: Yes, the Attorney General can be impeached, though this is rare. Impeachment would require a majority vote in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Q: Does the Attorney General have the final say on federal prosecutions?
A: The AG has significant influence over federal prosecutions but does not make decisions alone. U.S. Attorneys and other officials within the DOJ carry out most of the department’s day-to-day legal work.
Conclusion
The office of the U.S. Attorney General is, by its very nature, a complex balancing act between law enforcement and politics. The legacies of figures like Robert Kennedy, John Mitchell, Eric Holder, and William Barr highlight how different AGs have navigated this
tension—with varying degrees of success and controversy. The position’s power is immense, but it comes with profound ethical challenges. The ability of the Attorney General to maintain the integrity of the DOJ while resisting political pressure ultimately determines their legacy and, more importantly, the public’s trust in the rule of law.
By understanding the historical context and precedents, Americans can better appreciate the profound impact the Attorney General has on shaping the nation’s legal and political landscape.
