The role of the U.S. Attorney General (AG) has become one of the most scrutinized and contentious positions in American governance. Charged with overseeing the Department of Justice (DOJ), the AG operates at the delicate intersection of law enforcement, legal interpretation, and the volatile world of partisan politics. Over recent years, the office has seen a series of leaders whose actions reflect not just the immediate political climate but deeper institutional transformations in American governance.
Understanding the actions and legacies of William Barr, Merrick Garland, Jeff Sessions, and Loretta Lynch requires a more profound exploration of the structural forces reshaping the DOJ. These recent AGs have navigated a rapidly changing legal environment, where their every decision impacts the public’s trust in the nation’s legal institutions.
William Barr (2019–2020): Championing the Unitary Executive Theory
William Barr’s return as Attorney General during the Trump administration was driven by more than just political loyalty. His tenure signaled a renewed emphasis on the unitary executive theory—the belief that the president has near-total control over the executive branch, with limited checks from Congress or the judiciary. Barr’s legal philosophy, deeply rooted in this theory, shaped much of his decision-making and has left an indelible mark on the role of the DOJ.
One of the most controversial episodes in Barr’s time as AG was his handling of the Mueller Report. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was a pivotal moment for American democracy. Barr’s preemptive summary of the report—issued weeks before the full document was made public—downplayed its findings on obstruction of justice, effectively shielding President Trump from more severe political consequences.
Barr’s actions weren’t merely about public relations; they reflected a profound legal interpretation. Barr believed that the president, as head of the executive branch, could not obstruct justice while exercising his constitutional powers—an idea rooted in his unitary executive theory. By interpreting Mueller’s findings in this light, Barr shielded Trump from prosecution and reinforced the idea that the president has near-absolute authority over executive branch affairs.
A similar logic was at play in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn cases, where the DOJ intervened to protect Trump’s political allies. Critics viewed these interventions as a breakdown of prosecutorial independence, but from Barr’s perspective, they represented the president’s legitimate authority to direct the executive branch’s legal actions.
Even more quietly, Barr wielded the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to craft memos that expanded executive power on a range of issues, from national security to executive privilege. These memos, many of which remain classified, laid the groundwork for an even stronger executive branch in the future, continuing a long-standing trend of post-9/11 presidential power expansion.
Citation: For more on Barr’s interpretation of executive power, see Harvard Law Review’s analysis.
Merrick Garland (2021–Present): The Struggle to Depoliticize the DOJ
If Barr’s DOJ was defined by its vigorous defense of presidential power, Merrick Garland’s tenure has been characterized by a deliberate attempt to restore the DOJ’s reputation for neutrality and independence. Nominated by President Biden in 2021, Garland—previously a federal judge—approached the role with an eye toward depoliticizing the department after the tumultuous Barr years.
Yet, Garland’s methodical, cautious approach has not satisfied all corners. His handling of the January 6th Capitol insurrection investigations has drawn criticism from progressives who demand swift justice and from conservatives who accuse the DOJ of partisanship. Garland’s decision to proceed carefully, especially in prosecuting high-profile figures, reflects a broader tension in his leadership: the desire to act impartially while navigating an increasingly polarized political environment.
Garland’s reluctance to rush into indicting former President Trump, despite calls from certain political factions, highlights his belief in institutional survivalism—the idea that the DOJ must protect its long-term credibility, even if that means delaying politically charged prosecutions. His appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to oversee investigations related to Trump, particularly around classified documents, is one such effort to buffer the DOJ from accusations of partisanship.
Yet this very caution raises questions: can institutional survivalism hold up in a system where polarization has eroded public faith in neutral institutions? Garland’s belief in procedural correctness and a steady hand may be noble, but his approach has exposed the inherent fragility of the modern DOJ—where every move is seen through a hyper-partisan lens.
Garland’s task is monumental: to restore the DOJ’s integrity while navigating a political climate where neutrality is increasingly impossible to maintain. His tenure illustrates the delicate balance between accountability, impartiality, and the broader demands of democratic governance.
Citation: To explore more about Merrick Garland’s legal philosophy, see the American Bar Association’s detailed profile.
Jeff Sessions (2017–2018): The DOJ as a Culture War Weapon
Before Garland’s measured approach, Jeff Sessions led the DOJ through one of its most ideologically charged periods. A staunch conservative with a long history of hardline positions on immigration and civil rights, Sessions made the DOJ a frontline combatant in the broader cultural wars of the Trump era. His tenure exemplified how the department could be used as a weapon to advance a specific ideological agenda.
Sessions’ most infamous policy was the “zero tolerance” immigration stance, which led to the separation of thousands of families at the U.S.-Mexico border. While publicly justified as a deterrent against illegal immigration, the policy reflected deeper racial and nationalist anxieties—tapping into fears of demographic change and the perceived loss of American sovereignty. The policy was not just about enforcing immigration law but about using the power of the state to assert a particular vision of America, one where strict borders and traditional authority reigned supreme.
But it wasn’t just immigration where Sessions left his mark. His rollback of civil rights protections, especially related to police reform, was a direct repudiation of Obama-era DOJ policies. Under Obama, the DOJ had pursued consent decrees (court-enforced agreements that mandated reforms in police departments with histories of civil rights abuses) as a way to address systemic racial discrimination. Sessions, however, viewed these decrees as an overreach of federal power and argued that they undermined law enforcement morale. By reversing these policies, Sessions repositioned the DOJ as a defender of traditional law enforcement, even if it meant disregarding the civil rights of marginalized communities.
Sessions’ DOJ also championed religious liberty cases, often siding with conservative Christian groups in legal battles over anti-discrimination laws. This reflected a broader effort to use the DOJ not just to enforce laws but to reshape the cultural fabric of the nation, pushing back against the perceived liberal consensus on issues like LGBTQ rights.
In sum, Sessions’ DOJ was deeply ideological, serving as an engine of the conservative movement’s larger political and cultural project.
Citation: For further reading on Sessions’ legacy, see Brookings Institution’s assessment.
Loretta Lynch (2015–2017): Civil Rights vs. Political Optics
Loretta Lynch’s tenure as Attorney General stands in stark contrast to Sessions’. As the first African American woman to hold the office, Lynch sought to carry forward the DOJ’s civil rights legacy. Her work overseeing police reforms in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, in the wake of high-profile police killings of Black Americans, reflected a commitment to addressing systemic racism in law enforcement.
However, Lynch’s time in office is often overshadowed by the political fallout from her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Though Lynch insisted that the meeting was purely social, the optics of such an encounter—while the DOJ was investigating Clinton—were disastrous. This incident forced Lynch to recuse herself from the investigation, leaving FBI Director James Comey to assume a public role in shaping the narrative.
Despite her accomplishments on civil rights, this episode marred Lynch’s legacy, demonstrating how even the appearance of partisanship can damage the credibility of the DOJ.
Citation: To better understand Loretta Lynch’s contributions, see the National Urban League’s commentary.
FAQs:
1. Why is the U.S. Attorney General’s role so politically charged?
The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice and responsible for enforcing federal laws. This role often intersects with politically sensitive issues, such as civil rights, immigration, and investigations into high-ranking officials, which makes the AG vulnerable to political scrutiny.
2. What is the unitary executive theory that William Barr advocated for?
The unitary executive theory posits that the president has near-complete control over the executive branch and its agencies, with limited interference from Congress or the courts. This theory has been controversial, as it suggests that the president can influence or direct federal investigations.
3. Why was Merrick Garland’s appointment as Attorney General significant?
Garland’s appointment was seen as an attempt to restore the DOJ’s reputation after the Trump administration. He brought a reputation for impartiality and judicial restraint, particularly important after the controversial tenure of William Barr.
4. What is a consent decree in the context of police reform?
A consent decree is a court-ordered agreement between the DOJ and a police department to enforce reforms, typically after investigations find patterns of civil rights abuses. These decrees are legally binding and used to improve police practices.
5. Why was Jeff Sessions’ zero-tolerance immigration policy so controversial?
Sessions’ zero-tolerance policy led to the separation of thousands of migrant families at the U.S.-
Mexico border, sparking international outrage. The policy was criticized for its inhumane treatment of families, particularly children, and its harsh enforcement measures.
6. What lasting impact did Loretta Lynch have on the DOJ?
Lynch expanded civil rights investigations, especially around police misconduct. However, her legacy is mixed due to her controversial meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, which overshadowed much of her work.
Conclusion: Navigating the Tensions of Law and Politics
The position of U.S. Attorney General has evolved from a legal advisor to the president into one of the most politically charged roles in the federal government. Each of the recent AGs—whether through expanding executive power, restoring institutional integrity, or engaging in cultural and ideological battles—has left a unique mark on the DOJ.
As the DOJ continues to play a central role in issues of national importance, future Attorneys General will face the challenge of navigating the ever-shifting boundaries between law, politics, and public trust. Their decisions will not only shape the legal landscape but also influence the very structure of American democracy.
