Merrick Garland | |
|---|---|
 Official portrait, 2021 | |
| 86thUnited States Attorney General | |
| In office March 11, 2021 – January 20, 2025 | |
| President | Joe Biden |
| Deputy | John P. Carlin (acting) Lisa Monaco |
| Preceded by | William Barr |
| Succeeded by | Pam Bondi |
| Chief Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | |
| In office February 12, 2013 – February 11, 2020 | |
| Preceded by | David B. Sentelle |
| Succeeded by | Sri Srinivasan |
| Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | |
| In office March 20, 1997 – March 11, 2021 | |
| Appointed by | Bill Clinton |
| Preceded by | Abner Mikva |
| Succeeded by | Ketanji Brown Jackson |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Merrick Brian Garland (1952-11-13)November 13, 1952 (age 73) |
| Political party | Independent |
| Spouse | |
| Children | 2 |
| Education | Harvard University (BA,JD) |
| Awards | Henry J. Friendly Medal (2022) |
| Signature |  |
Garland's remarks on the twentieth anniversary of theSeptember 11 attacks. Recorded September 10, 2021 | |
Merrick Brian Garland (born November 13, 1952) is an American lawyer and jurist who served as the 86thUnited States attorney general from 2021 to 2025. He previously served as acircuit judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 2021. In 2016, PresidentBarack Obamanominated Garland to theU.S. Supreme Court; however, theU.S. Senate had refused to hold a confirmation hearing.
A native of theChicago area, Garland attendedHarvard University andHarvard Law School, where he was editor of theHarvard Law Review. He served as alaw clerk to JudgeHenry Friendly of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and toU.S. Supreme Court JusticeWilliam J. Brennan Jr., and then practiced corporate litigation atArnold & Porter, after which he worked as a federal prosecutor in theUnited States Department of Justice, where he supervised the investigation and prosecution of theOklahoma City bombers. PresidentBill Clinton appointed Garland to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997, and he served as its chief judge from 2013 to 2020.
PresidentBarack Obama, aDemocrat,nominated Garland to serve as anassociate justice of the Supreme Court in March 2016 to fill the vacancy created by the death ofAntonin Scalia. However, theRepublican Senatemajority refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination. The unprecedented refusal of aSenate majority to consider a Supreme Court nomination was highly controversial. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days (the longest to date), and it expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the114th Congress. Eventually, subsequent PresidentDonald Trump, aRepublican, nominatedNeil Gorsuch to the vacant seat, and the Republican Senate majority confirmed him.
PresidentJoe Biden nominated Garland as U.S. attorney general in January 2021. He was confirmed by the Senate in a 70–30 vote, and took office in March of that same year. During his tenure, Garland was criticized for the pace of the prosecution of president Donald Trump. Some observers, including PresidentJoe Biden, assigned Garland some responsibility for the fact that none of the indictments obtained by special counselJack Smith were likely to go to trial before theNovember 2024 election in which Trump prevailed and won re-election to a second non-consecutive term.[1][2]
Garland was born on November 13, 1952, inChicago.[3] His mother Shirley (née Horwitz; 1925–2016)[4] was a director of volunteer services atChicago's Council for Jewish Elderly (now called CJE SeniorLife). His father, Cyril Garland (1915–2000),[5] headed Garland Advertising, a small business run out of the family home.[6][7][8] Garland was raised inConservative Judaism; the family name had been changed fromGarfinkel several generations earlier. His grandparents left thePale of Settlement in the westernRussian Empire in the early 20th century, fleeingantisemiticpogroms in what is now Ukraine and Poland.[8][9] Two of his grandmother's siblings were later murdered inthe Holocaust.[10] He is a second cousin ofRepublican six-termIowa Governor and formerUS Ambassador to ChinaTerry Branstad.[11]
Garland grew up in the north Chicago border suburb ofLincolnwood.[12][6] He attendedNiles West High School inSkokie, Illinois, where he was president of the student council, acted in theatrical productions, and was a member of the debate team.[13] He graduated in 1970 as the classvaledictorian.[6][12] Garland was also aPresidential Scholar andNational Merit Scholar.[14][15] He then studiedsocial studies atHarvard University.[6][16][17] He initially wanted to become a physician, but soon decided to become a lawyer instead.[13] He allied himself with his future boss,Jamie Gorelick, when he was elected the only freshman member of a campus-wide committee on which Gorelick also served.[18] During his college summers Garland volunteered as a speechwriter to CongressmanAbner J. Mikva.[18] After PresidentJimmy Carter appointed Mikva to theD.C. Circuit, Mikva would rely on Garland when hiringlaw clerks.[19] At Harvard, Garland wrote news articles andtheater reviews for theHarvard Crimson, and was a resident ofQuincy House.[20][21] Garland wrote his 235-page honors thesis on industrialmergers in Britain in the 1960s.[18][22] Garland graduated from Harvard in 1974 with aBachelor of Arts,summa cum laude, and was elected toPhi Beta Kappa.
Garland then attended Harvard Law School,[16] where he was a member of theHarvard Law Review. Garland ran for the presidency of theLaw Review but lost toSusan Estrich, so he served as an articles editor instead.[18][17] As an articles editor, Garland assigned himself to edit a submission by U.S. Supreme Court justiceWilliam Brennan on the topic of the role ofstate constitutions in safeguardingindividual rights.[18][19][23] This correspondence with Brennan later contributed to his winning a clerkship with the justice.[23] Garland graduated from Harvard Law School in 1977 with aJuris Doctor,magna cum laude.
After graduating from law school, Garland spent two years as a judiciallaw clerk, first for JudgeHenry Friendly of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York City) from 1977 to 1978 and then for JusticeWilliam J. Brennan Jr. of theU.S. Supreme Court from 1978 to 1979.[17] After his clerkships, Garland spent two years as a special assistant to U.S. attorney generalBenjamin Civiletti.[6]
After theCarter administration ended in 1981, Garland entered private practice at the law firmArnold & Porter.[6] Garland practiced mostly corporate litigation, and was made a partner in 1985.[6] InMotor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983) Garland acted as counsel to an insurance company suing to reinstate an unpopularautomatic seat belt mandate.[24]After winning the case in both the District of Columbia Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, Garland wrote an 87-pageHarvard Law Review article describing the way courts use a heightened "hard look"standard of review andscope of review when an agency choosesderegulation, with increasing focus on the fidelity of the agencies' actions to congressional intent.[24]In 1985–86, while at Arnold & Porter, Garland was a lecturer atHarvard Law School, where he taughtantitrust law.[17][25] He also published an article in theYale Law Journal urging a broader application ofantitrust immunity to state and local governments.[24]
Desiring to return to public service and do more trial work, in 1989 Garland became anassistant United States attorney in theU.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. As a line prosecutor, Garland represented the government in criminal cases ranging fromdrug trafficking to complexpublic corruption matters.[6] Garland was one of the three principal prosecutors who handled the investigation intoWashington, D.C. MayorMarion Barry's possession of cocaine.[26]
Garland then briefly returned to Arnold & Porter, working there from 1992 to 1993.[18] In 1993, Garland joined the newClinton administration as deputy assistant attorney general in theCriminal Division of theUnited States Department of Justice.[6] The following year, Deputy Attorney GeneralJamie Gorelick – a key mentor of Garland's[27] – asked Garland to be herprincipal associate deputy attorney general.[6][28]
In that role, Garland's responsibilities included the supervision of high-profiledomestic-terrorism cases, including theOklahoma City bombing,Ted Kaczynski (also known as the "Unabomber"), and theAtlanta Olympics bombings.[6][29]Garland insisted on being sent to Oklahoma City in the aftermath of the attack, in order to examine the crime scene and oversee the investigation in preparation for the prosecution.[30] He represented the government at thepreliminary hearings of the two main defendants,Timothy McVeigh andTerry Nichols.[30] Garland offered to lead the trial team, but could not because he was needed at theJustice Department headquarters. Instead, he helped pick the team and supervised it from Washington, D.C., where he was involved in major decisions, including the choice to seek thedeath penalty for McVeigh and Nichols.[30] Garland won praise for his work on the case from the Republicangovernor of Oklahoma,Frank Keating.[6]
Garland served as co-chair of the administrative law section of theDistrict of Columbia Bar from 1991 to 1994.[17][31] He is also a member of theAmerican Law Institute.[17]
In 2003, Garland was elected to theHarvard Board of Overseers, completing the unexpired term ofDeval Patrick, who had stepped down from the board.[32] Garland served as president of the overseers for 2009–10.[33]
On September 6, 1995, PresidentBill Clinton nominated Garland to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seat vacated by his longtime mentorAbner J. Mikva.[18] Justice Brennan, for whom Garland had clerked, recommended Garland for the position in a letter to Clinton.[23] TheAmerican Bar Association (ABA)Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Garland a "well-qualified" committee rating, its highest.[34]
On December 1, 1995, Garland received a hearing regarding the nomination before theSenate Judiciary Committee.[35] In Senate confirmation hearings Garland said that the Supreme Court justices whom he most admired were Justice Brennan, for whom he clerked, andChief JusticeJohn Marshall. Garland also expressed admiration for the writing style of JusticeOliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[36] However, Senate Republicans did not schedule a vote on Garland's confirmation,[6] not because of concerns over Garland's qualifications, but because of a dispute over whether to fill the seat.[25][37]
After winning the November 1996 presidential election, Clinton renominated Garland on January 7, 1997.[38] He was confirmed on March 19, 1997, by a 76–23 vote.[39] The majority of Republican senators voted to confirm Garland, including senatorsJohn McCain,Orrin Hatch,Susan Collins, andJim Inhofe.[40] SenatorsMitch McConnell,Chuck Grassley, andJeff Sessions were among those who voted against Garland.[40] All of the 23 "no" votes came from Republicans, and all were said to be based "on whether there was even a need for an eleventh seat" on the D.C. Circuit.[41] He received his judicial commission on March 20, 1997.[42]
Garland became chief judge of the D.C. Circuit on February 12, 2013.[43] In May 2013 he announced that the D.C. Circuit had unanimously decided to provide the public with same-day audio recordings oforal arguments in the court.[44][45][42] During his term, he was an active member of theJudicial Conference of the United States,[46] and was involved in the formulation of new rules to protect federal judicial branch employees from workplace harassment, which were adopted in the wake of multiple sexual misconduct allegations against JudgeAlex Kozinski.[46][47] Garland's seven-year term as chief judge ended on February 11, 2020, with JudgeSri Srinivasan succeeding him.[46] Garland continued to serve as an active member of the court until his retirement.[48][49][42]
Garland is considered a judicial moderate and acentrist.[50] Garland has been described byNina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson ofNPR as "a moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases".[6]Tom Goldstein, the publisher ofSCOTUSblog, wrote in 2010 that "Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements."[25] Garland has a reputation for collegiality and his opinions rarely draw a dissent.[51] As of 2016, Garland had written just fifteen dissents in his two decades on the court, fewer than his colleagueBrett Kavanaugh, who wrote some 17 dissents over the previous decade.[51]
Garland has tended to favor deference to regulatory agencies.[52] For example, inIn re Aiken County (2013), Garland dissented when the court issuedmandamus ordering theNuclear Regulatory Commission to process theYucca Mountain nuclear waste repository license.[53] InAmericans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2013), Garland joined a divided court upholding theDEA'sclassification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.[13] However, according to Goldstein, in a number of split decisions onenvironmental law Garland "favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought byenvironmental groups."[25] InRancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton (2003), Garland found thearroyo toad was protected by the federalEndangered Species Act.[54] Circuit JudgeJohn Roberts dissented from the denial of rehearingen banc, writing that Congress'sinterstate commerce power cannot reach "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California."[55]
While on thebench, Garland has shown a tendency to be deferential to the government in criminal cases, siding with prosecutors in ten of the fourteen criminal cases in which he disagreed with a colleague.[56] For example, inUnited States v. Watson (1999), Garland dissented when the court concluded a prosecutor's closing argument was undulyprejudicial, objecting that a conviction should be reversed for only "the most egregious of these kind of errors."[56] In 2007, Garland dissented when theen banc D.C. Circuit reversed the conviction of aWashington, D.C. police officer who had accepted bribes in an FBI sting operation.[57]
Garland has taken a broad view ofwhistleblower protection laws, such as theFalse Claims Act (FCA),[58] which creates a private cause of action against thosedefrauding the federal government.[57] For example, inUnited States ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard University (1998), Garland wrote for the court in holding that a plaintiff alleging he had been fired byHoward University for whistleblowing could sue under the FCA for retaliation.[25] InUnited States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. (2004), Garland dissented when the court, in an opinion written by Judge John Roberts, held that the FCA did not apply to false claims submitted to Amtrak because Amtrak is not the government.[57][58] Roberts justified his narrow reading by citing a book by circuit judgeHenry Friendly.[59] In dissent, Garland (who like Roberts had clerked for Friendly), cited Friendly's book as supporting the use oflegislative intent,[57] writing that Roberts was relying on "'canons' ofstatutory construction, which serve there as 'cannons' of statutory destruction."[58][60] Garland's dissent, expressing concerns that the court's ruling would impede the government's ability to pursue false claims cases against federal grantees, is credited with sparking theFraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, which eliminated the loophole.[58] During confirmation hearings in 2005, Senator Chuck Grassley sharply questioned Roberts on why he had not adopted Garland's reading.[57] Roberts replied, "Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area."[57]
During Garland's tenure, the D.C. Circuit reviewed cases arising from theGuantanamo Bay detention camp. Inal Odah v. United States (2003), a panel that included Garland unanimously held that federal courts could not hear challenges from Guantanamo detainees.[25] In July 2011, Garland wrote for the unanimous panel when it rejected Guantanamo detaineeMoath Hamza Ahmed al Alawi's petition forhabeas corpus.[61][62] InParhat v. Gates (2008), Garland wrote for a panel that unanimously overturned theCombatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that acaptured Uyghur was anenemy combatant.[63] InSaleh v. Titan Corp. (2009), Garland dissented from the court's holding that former Iraqi detainees atAbu Ghraib prison could not sueprivate military contractors who participated intorture and prisoner abuse. Garland wrote that the suit should be allowed to proceed because "no act of Congress and no judicial precedent" immunized the contractors fromtort liability, theFederal Tort Claims Act specifically excludes contractors, and tort liability would not interfere with government operations.[64][65][66]
According to Goldstein, Garland has "tended to take a broader view" ofFirst Amendment rights.[25] In cases involving theFreedom of Information Act and similar provisions related togovernment transparency, "Judge Garland's rulings reflect a preference for open government."[25] InACLU v. CIA (2013), Garland wrote for a panel unanimously rejecting the agency'sGlomar response and ordering it to process the ACLU's FOIA request regardingtargeted killings by CIA drones.[67] InCause of Action v. FTC (2015), Garland wrote for a panel unanimously overturning the agency's limitation on FOIA fee waivers to largenews outlets.[67]
InLee v. Department of Justice (2005), Garland dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc after the D.C. Circuit affirmed thedistrict court's order holding reporters incontempt of court forrefusing to testify about theiranonymous sources during theWen Ho Lee investigation.[66][68] Garland wrote that the panel had erred in failing to "weigh the public interest in protecting the reporter's sources against the private interest in compelling disclosure" and that the decision "undermined the Founders' intention to protect the press 'so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.'"[68] InInitiative & Referendum Institute v. U.S. Postal Service (2005), Garland wrote for the court, holding that aU.S. Postal Service regulation banning signature-gathering forpetitions at post offices violated the First Amendment.[25][68] Garland found the regulation to befacially overbroad and notnarrowly tailored.[68]
In cases involvingcampaign finance reform laws, Garland has appliedCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission when he believed that he was compelled to do so, but he has not sought to extend its holding.[66] InWagner v. Federal Election Commission (2015), Garland wrote for the unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit in upholding a prohibition on campaign contributions fromfederal contractors because of the governmental interest in preventingcorruption.[66][69] InNational Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor (2009), Garland wrote for the court in a decision upholding the constitutionality oflobbyist disclosure requirements under theHonest Leadership and Open Government Act.[44][69] ProfessorRick Hasen, an election-law expert, writes that Garland's opinions on election law are characterized by careful application of precedent and indicate that Garland believes in reasonable regulation.[69]
Garland has addressed a number ofreligious freedom cases while on the D.C. Circuit, although several of these have been decided on procedural grounds.[70] In 2002, Garland joined a unanimous court in ruling for two federal prisoners who were denied the right to consumecommunion wine.[70][71] In 2010, Garland wrote the decision for a unanimous court in favor of an Interior Department employee who brought a religious-discrimination claim after the Interior Department refused to allow her to work weekdays rather than Sunday, when she wished to attend church andBible study.[70][72]
In 2007, Garland voted in favor ofen banc review of the D.C. Circuit's panel decision inParker v. District of Columbia invalidating theD.C. handgun ban. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this invalidation 5–4 in an opinion by Justice Scalia.[25]
InAlexander v. Daley (2003), Garland joined a decision (authored by JudgeColleen Kollar-Kotelly), rejecting a challenge brought by District of Columbia residents seekingD.C. congressional voting rights.[26][73]
InHutchins v. District of Columbia (1999), Garland concurred with four other D.C. Circuit judges (en banc) that D.C.'s Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 implicated at least some significant right ofminors.[74] He joined parts of aplurality opinion written by JudgeLaurence Silberman that upheld thejuvenile curfew underintermediate scrutiny and avagueness challenge. Garland also joined the part of JudgeJudith W. Rogers's opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) holding that afundamental right to intrastate travel exists.[75]
Garland retired from federal judicial service on March 11, 2021, to accept appointment as theAttorney General of the United States.[42]
Garland was considered twice to fill vacated seats on the United States Supreme Court in 2009 and 2010, before finally being nominated in 2016 by PresidentBarack Obama for the seat left vacant by the death of conservative Associate JusticeAntonin Scalia.[76]
In 2009, following the announcement by JusticeDavid Souter that he would retire, Garland was considered as one of nine finalists for the post, which ultimately went toSonia Sotomayor, then a judge of the Second Circuit.[77]
After the April 2010 announcement by JusticeJohn Paul Stevens that he would retire, Garland was again widely seen as a leading contender for a nomination to theSupreme Court of the United States.[78][79][80] President Obama interviewed Garland, among others, for the vacancy.[50] In May 2010, SenatorOrrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he would help Obama if Garland was nominated, calling Garland "a consensus nominee" and predicting that Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support.[81][82] Obama nominatedSolicitor General of the United StatesElena Kagan, who was confirmed in August 2010.[50]
On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court JusticeAntonin Scalia died.[83] Later that day, Senate Republicans led by Majority LeaderMitch McConnell issued a statement that they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama, and that aSupreme Court nomination should be left to the next president of the United States.[84][85][86] President Obama responded that he intended to "fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court,"[87][88] and that there was no "well established tradition" that a president could not fill a Supreme Court vacancy during their last year in office.[89]
In early March 2016,The New York Times reported that Garland was being vetted by the Obama administration as a potential nominee. A week later, Garland was named as one of three judges on the President's "short list" (along with JudgeSri Srinivasan, also of the D.C. Circuit, and JudgePaul J. Watford of the Ninth Circuit). Obama interviewed all three leading contenders, as well as two others who were being considered: JudgeJane L. Kelly of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and JudgeKetanji Brown Jackson of theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[90] Soon afterward, SenatorOrrin Hatch,President pro tempore of the United States Senate and the most senior Republican Senator, predicted that President Obama would "name someone the liberal Democratic base wants" even though he "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."[91] Five days later, on March 16, Obama formally nominated Garland to the vacant post of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of theUnited States.[92][93]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history,[40] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee sinceLewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971.[94] TheAmerican Bar Association (ABA)Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" (its highest rating) to sit on the Supreme Court.[95]
UnderSenate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell, the Senate's Republican majority refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[96][97][98] McConnell's categorical refusal to hold hearings on Garland's nomination was described by political scientists and legal scholars as unprecedented,[97][99][100] McConnell's choice to lead a Republican blockade of the nomination was described as a "culmination of [his] confrontational style,"[101] and an example ofconstitutional hardball.[102]Yascha Mounk called it a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms."[103]
After a period of 293 days, Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the114th Congress, the 15th nomination to the Supreme Court to lapse at the end of a session of Congress.[104][105] It was the longest pending period of aSupreme Court nominee in history, far exceeding the 125-day delay faced by the ultimately confirmed Justice Louis Brandeis in 1916.[106] On January 31, 2017, PresidentDonald Trump nominatedNeil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[107] On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.
McConnell went on to boast about stopping Garland's nomination, saying in August 2016, "one of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"[108][109] In April 2018, McConnell said the decision not to act upon the Garland nomination was "the most consequential decision I've made in my entire public career".[110]
President-electJoe Biden selected Garland for the position ofUnited States attorney general, with news of the selection coming on January 6, 2021.[111][112] He was formally nominated by Biden on January 20, afterBiden took office.[113] InSenate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Garland vowed to oversee vigorous prosecution of those whostormed the United States Capitol, and other domestic extremists, drawing on his experience prosecuting the perpetrators of theOklahoma City bombing.[114][115][116] Garland said it was likely the Biden administration would place a moratorium on use of thefederal death penalty and expressed reservations about the death penalty in light of the "almost randomness or arbitrariness of its application."[116] He pledged to protectequal justice under law and reinvigorate the DOJCivil Rights Division, which, according to some media figures, languished under theTrump administration.[115][117] Garland affirmed that the Justice Department would remain independent under his leadership.[116] The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 15–7 to advance Garland's nomination to the Senate floor,[118][119] and on March 10, the Senate confirmed Garland's nomination by a vote of 70–30.[120][114][121] He was sworn in on March 11, 2021, by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Lee J. Lofthus.[122]
In April 2021, Russia imposed sanctions against Garland, including prohibiting him from entering Russia. This was in retaliation for U.S. expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats, a sanction imposed by the United States against Russia for itsSolarWinds hack,aggression against Ukraine, andinterference in the 2020 U.S. election.[123]
.jpg)
In May 2021, the DOJ appealed in part a ruling by JudgeAmy Berman Jackson of theDistrict Court for the District of Columbia to make public most of a DOJ memo detailing former attorney generalBill Barr's legal rationale for clearing President Trump ofobstruction of justice in theSpecial Counsel investigation.[124][125][126][127]
On June 7, 2021, the Justice Department continued its defense of a defamation lawsuit byE. Jean Carroll, arguing that Trump could not be sued because he had denied her rape allegation in offending statements in his presidential capacity. Garland had been deeply involved in the decision. The White House quickly distanced itself from the decision.[124][125][128] Garland in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on October 21 stated that the DOJ's briefing was solely on the question of the application of theFederal Tort Claims Act.[129][130]
On July 1, 2021, Garland imposed a moratorium on allfederal executions pending a review of relevant policies and procedures.[131] The review will examine "the risk of pain and suffering associated with the use ofpentobarbital," "regulations made in November 2020 that expanded the permissible methods of execution beyondlethal injection, and authorized the use of state facilities and personnel in federal executions", and "December 2020 and January 2021 changes to expedite execution of capital sentences."[131][132][133] This was consistent with Biden's pledge to push for legislation to end thefederal death penalty. In spite of this, Garland has continued to pursue the death penalty in cases in which a previous administration had sought the death penalty against a suspected terrorist.[134] The Trump administration resumed federal executions in 2019, and executed 13 inmates in total, the first in 17 years and including the first woman in 70 years.[132][133]
.jpg)
In June 2021, Garland pledged to double the department's enforcement staff for protecting the right to vote, in response toRepublican Party efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election,[135][136] The same month, Garland announced a DOJ lawsuit against the state of Georgia over itsnewly passed restrictions on voting; the DOJ complaint said that the state targeted Black Americans in violation of theVoting Rights Act of 1965.[137]
In July 2021, the Justice Department released two guidance documents regarding election law changes and post-election audits, reminding states that the DOJ was closely observing states' compliance with federal election and civil rights laws.[124][138][139]
In November 2021, the DOJ sued Texas over Senate Bill 1 which required rejection of mail ballots "for immaterial errors and omissions," alleging it would restrict voting for those withlimited English proficiency, soldiers deployed and voters overseas.[140][141]
In a separate suit filed by DOJ against Texas the following month, the federal government alleged that Texas'redistricting plans discriminated against Latino and Black voters in violation of the Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act.[142][143][144][145]
During Garland's tenure as AG, the Justice Department emphasized protection of civil rights.[146] Garland rescinded a Trump administration policy (imposed byJeff Sessions) that curtailed DOJ investigations into police department misconduct ("pattern-and-practice" investigations) and restricted the use ofconsent decrees toreform police departments.[146][147][148]
On April 21, 2021, Garland subsequently announced that the DOJ was opening a pattern-and-practice investigation into theMinneapolis Police Department after former officerDerek Chauvin wasconvicted for themurder of George Floyd, examining the use of force by officers and discriminatory conduct, its treatment of people withbehavioral health issues, and the department's current accountability systems.[149] On April 26, Garland announced another investigation into theLouisville Metro Police Department in the aftermath of thekilling of Breonna Taylor, examining the execution of search warrants.[150][151] On August 5, Garland opened another investigation into thePhoenix Police Department over its policies on dealing with the homeless.[152][153] On December 3, the DOJ opened another investigation into theMount Vernon Police Department to assess if it engaged in discriminatory policing, involving its use of force, strip and body cavity searches, how it handles evidence, and its systems of accountability.[154][155]
In June 2021, the DOJ, through a memo issued by Deputy Attorney GeneralLisa Monaco, reversed a Trump-era policy that banned federal officers and agents from usingbody-worn cameras; the memo also mandated the use of body-worn cameras for federal law enforcement in certain circumstances (including when carrying out planned arrests or executingsearch warrants).[156][157][158]
On September 14, 2021, the DOJ announced a civil investigation into prisons in Georgia, focusing on prison violence and sexual abuse ofLGBTQ prisoners by prisoners and staff, continuing with an initial investigation launched in 2016.[159][160][161]
In September, 2021, the DOJ in a memo limited the use ofchokeholds and carotid restraints by federal officers during arrests, prohibiting such tactics unless deadly force is authorized (i.e., unless the officer reasonably believes "that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person"). The memo also limited the use of unannounced ("no-knock") entries when executing warrants, directing officers toknock-and-announce except "where an agent has reasonable grounds to believe that knocking and announcing the agent’s presence would create an imminent threat of physical violence to the agent and/or another person."[162][163][164]
On October 13, 2021, the DOJ launched another investigation into five juvenile detention facilities in Texas for systemic physical or sexual abuse of children.[160][165]
On July 26, 2021, the DOJ sent letters to former DOJ officials of the Trump administration, including Acting Attorney GeneralJeffrey A. Rosen, Acting Deputy Attorney GeneralRichard Donoghue,Associate Deputy Attorney General Patrick Hovakimian,U.S. Attorney for theNorthern District of Georgia Byung J. "BJay" Pak, ActingU.S. Attorney for theNorthern District of Georgia Bobby L. Christine, andUnited States Assistant Attorney General for theEnvironment and Natural Resources Division andCivil DivisionJeffrey Clark.[166] The letters relayed that the DOJ would not exertexecutive privilege over their testimony as witnesses to Trump'sattempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election or the2021 United States Capitol attack, and that they were free to provide "unrestricted testimony" and "irrespective of potential privilege" to theHouse Oversight Committee andSenate Judiciary Committee.[166][167][168][169]
On July 28, 2021, the DOJ further rejectedRep.Mo Brooks's request to protect him inEric Swalwell's civil lawsuit against him and Trump concerning his comments and actions in the attack. The DOJ in a court filing determined that Brooks' relevant comments and actions were outside the scope of his official responsibilities as a member of Congress.[170]
On October 21, 2021, theU.S. House of Representatives voted to referSteve Bannon, the adviser to former presidentDonald Trump, to the DOJ for criminalcontempt of Congress due to defying a subpoena from the House'sJanuary 6 select committee over claims ofexecutive privilege. AfterSpeakerNancy Pelosi certified the contempt referral, it was sent to theU.S. Attorney for DC, who will then decide whether to send the referral to a grand jury for indictment, with Garland having the final say.[171] Garland told lawmakers that the Justice Department "will apply the facts and the law and make a decision" when considering a criminal contempt referral for Bannon. He stated that "the Department of Justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and the law and make a decision, consistent with the principles of prosecution."[129][130][171][172]
In November 2022, days after Trump announced his2024 presidential campaign, Garland appointedJack Smith to serve as special counsel for theinvestigations of Trump.[173][174]
On February 8, 2024, the Department of Justice released a report authored by special counselRobert Hur into President Biden's handling of classified documents, concluding that charges were not necessary in the incident. As part of its reasoning not to charge Biden, the report mentioned perceived problems with Biden's memory and mental acuity. Biden was interviewed by Hur during the investigation, helping form the report's conclusions.[175]
Garland has been criticized by supporters of Biden and some former prosecutors for his decision to release Hur's report referring to Biden as an "elderly man with a poor memory." They alleged that Hur's report included gratuitous language about Biden that could be used to reinforce perceptions that Biden is fading mentally and physically.[176]
Associate deputy attorney general Bradley Weinsheimer, the DOJ's senior nonpolitical career official, rejected criticisms of the report, stating that the report's comments "fall well within the department's standards for public release".[177] Garland stated that Hur had never proposed an investigative step which he found to be inappropriate.[178]
 | This"criticism" or "controversy" sectionmay compromise the article'sneutrality. Please helpintegrate negative information into other sections or removeundue focus on minor aspects throughdiscussion on thetalk page.(May 2025) |
In October 2021, amid a surge of threats against school board members across the country, Garland issued a memorandum addressing an "increase in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff"; the memo directed the FBI and US attorneys' offices to set up meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement leaders for establishing tiplines for threat reporting and discussing strategies to address such threats.[179][180][129][181] He issued the memo soon after theNational School Boards Association wrote to Biden to request a federal response to the protests and threats against school officials and investigations into whether they constituted as forms of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.[182][183][184][185]
The memo prompted criticism from Republicans in the House and Senate, who accused Garland of treating parents like domestic terrorists, although the memo did not mention either of them.[181] McConnell wrote to Garland that parents "absolutely should be telling" local schools what to teach regarding contentious public issues.[180][186] In House and Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Garland pushed back on Republicans' claims that the DOJ were treating parents like "domestic terrorists" and investigating political speech, testifying that the DOJ "[were] not investigating peaceful protest or parent involvement at school board meetings."[129][130][187][188] Numerous Senate Republicans called on Garland to resign over the memo.[189] Seventeen Republicanstate attorneys general led byTodd Rokita, and numerous House Republicans, separately wrote to Biden and Garland requesting the memorandum be immediately withdrawn.[181][185][187]
TheHouse Judiciary Committee and theHouse Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for Garland to turn over materials related to Hur's investigation, particularly audio of Hur's interview with Biden.[190][191] Biden subsequently invoked executive privilege to block the release of the materials, preventing Garland from turning them over.[192]Department of Justice officials also argued that the audio of Biden's interview could be fraudulently edited ordeepfaked and that the disclosure could hamper cooperation in future investigations. On June 12, 2024, Garland was held incontempt by theHouse of Representatives for defying the subpoenas and refusing to disclose audio of Hur's interview with Biden.[193] The Department of Justice stated that Garland cannot be prosecuted for contempt due to Biden's invocation of executive privilege.[194]
House speakerMike Johnson said he will move in federal court to enforce a subpoena against Garland to obtain audio recordings of Biden, after the Justice Department declined to act on the House's contempt referral.[195]
Three lawsuits have been filed by organizations seeking access to the audio recordings of the Biden interview.Judicial Watch,the Heritage Foundation andCNN are the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which are based on the failure of the Department of Justice to provide the audio in response toFreedom of Information Act requests. CNN's lawsuit has been joined by eleven other news organizations. The three lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending beforeJudge Timothy Kelly.[196]
On July 11, 2024, an attempt by the House of Representatives to findUnited States attorney general Garland in "inherent contempt" of Congress fell short in a 204 to 210 vote, with four Republicans voting with all Democrats to oppose the measure.[197] The resolution would have imposed a fine of $10,000 per day on Garland for defying a congressional subpoena until he handed over audio of former special counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Joe Biden.[198]
Garland has been criticized for the pace of the prosecution of then-former president Donald Trump. Some observers, reportedly including President Joe Biden, assign him some responsibility for the fact that none of the indictments obtained by special counsel Jack Smith went to trial before theNovember 2024 election.[199] California's then-representativeAdam Schiff was quoted as saying "I think that delay has contributed to a situation where none of these trials may go forward. The department bears some of that responsibility."[200]
Some commentators have defended Garland, pointing to substantial delays in the prosecution stemming fromJohn Roberts and the Supreme Court's immunity decision inTrump v. United States.[201][202][203][204][205]
After Trump's re-election for a second non-consecutive term, further criticism was directed against Garland.[206][207]
Garland and his wife, Lynn, were married at theHarvard Club inMidtown Manhattan in September 1987. Lynn Rosenman Garland's grandfather,Samuel Irving Rosenman, was a justice of theNew York Supreme Court (a trial-level court) and a special counsel to presidentsFranklin D. Roosevelt andHarry S. Truman. She graduated from theBrearley School in Manhattan andcum laude from Harvard University, and received a Master of Science degree in operations management from theMIT Sloan School of Management. Her father, Robert Rosenman, was a partner in the New York law firm ofCravath, Swaine & Moore.[7] As of June 2018, she advised government and nonprofit groups on voting systems security and accuracy issues.[208] The couple lives together inBethesda, Maryland.[209]
Garland and his wife have two daughters: Rebecca and Jessica, both of whom are graduates ofYale University.[210] JusticeElena Kagan hired Jessica Garland, a 2019 graduate ofYale Law School, as one of her law clerks in early July 2020, before Biden's election and Garland's appointment, to serve as a law clerk in 2022–2023. The Supreme Court said that "in light of the potential for actual or apparent conflicts of interest," Jessica Garland will not serve as Kagan's law clerk while her father remains as attorney general.[211] Garland took part in the ceremony when his daughter Rebecca married Xan Tanner in June 2018.[208]
Financial disclosure forms in 2016 indicated that Garland's net worth at the time was between $6 million and $23M.[19] As of 2021, his net worth was estimated byForbes at $8.6-33M.[212]
Garland isred-green colorblind, so he uses a list to match his suits and ties.[19] He is aReform Jew.[213]
In May 2025, Garland returned to Arnold & Porter after leaving government service.[214]
My grandmother was one of five children born in what is now Belarus. Three made it to the United States, including my grandmother who came through the Port of Baltimore. Two did not make it. Those two were killed in the Holocaust.
Garland 'is almost always deferential to agency interpretations of statutes,' UCLA law professor Ann Carlson wrote
The one thing I think is important to dispel is any notion that somehow that this is some well established tradition, or some constitutional principle, that a president in his last year in office cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
After a comprehensive look at every past Supreme Court vacancy, two law professors have concluded that it is an unprecedented development ... That categorical stance is new in the nation's history, the professors, Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone, wrote in a study published online by TheNew York University Law Review.
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Data from Wikidata
| Legal offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1997–2021 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Chief Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 2013–2020 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | United States Attorney General 2021–2025 | Succeeded by |
| U.S. order of precedence (ceremonial) | ||
| Preceded byas Former U.S. Cabinet Member | Order of precedence of the United States as Former U.S. Cabinet Member | Succeeded byas Former U.S. Cabinet Member |
.jpg)