Holder Leaves Mixed Results

The public imagination will remember United States Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who announced his resignation last week, as the first African American to lead the Justice Department and as a close friend of President Obama. But beyond these distinctions, Mr. Holder’s legacy is a split one. On the one hand, he was a tireless advocate for the rights of underrepresented groups. On the other, he presided over the expansion of a surveillance apparatus put in place by the Bush administration, and in doing so ran roughshod over the rights he defended so well in other spheres. Holder’s Justice Department also failed to prosecute those in the financial services industry responsible for the recession.

One of Holder’s most crucial projects was his fight against regressive voting restrictions. He led the effort to undo restrictions on early voting and photo ID laws, and fought attempts to limit the Voting Rights Act. When the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of that law in 2013, Mr. Holder continued to resist a renewed push to implement laws that disproportionately affect the voting rights of underprivileged populations.

Holder’s tenure also saw significant progress on LGBT rights. He chose not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3 of which the Supreme Court subsequently voided. As legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin noted, under Holder “the Justice Department has committed itself to the idea that discrimination against gay people is unlawful.”  The Attorney General deserves credit for adopting this overdue position wholeheartedly and defending it effectively.

Holder deserves additional approbation for his support of criminal justice reform, which included denouncing the current epidemic of mass incarceration, allowing states to liberalize marijuana laws, and supporting a reduction in the sentences of non-violent drug offenders.

The issue of race inevitably pervaded Mr. Holder’s actions on criminal justice issues and voting rights, and he dealt with the topic admirably, if contentiously. His recent role in ensuring that the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, received real scrutiny exemplified Mr. Holder’s willingness to pursue civil rights cases seriously.

Unfortunately, this commitment to civil and political rights did not extend to every part of Holder’s record. Mr. Holder supported the Washington, D.C., police in arguing that GPS tracking did not require a warrant, a contention that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected. He also authorized the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telecommunications data.

Perhaps most egregious were Holder’s stances on press freedom and targeted killings. In pursuing whistleblowers, searching the communications of journalists, and setting legal precedents that could jail reporters, Holder has undoubtedly diminished legal protections for journalists. And his Department’s arguments in favor of the targeted killing of American citizens represent a gross lack of concern for due process.

A final blemish on Mr. Holder’s record is his failure to pursue criminal actions against financial executives in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 crisis. Setting the precedent that banks and bankers are “too big to jail” has undoubtedly undermined public faith in the government’s ability to hold powerful economic actors accountable.

As many in the media have noted, Mr. Holder’s mixed record resembles that of his idol, Robert F. Kennedy. On issues of civil rights for underrepresented Americans, Mr. Holder has lived up to that admirable legacy. But both men had serious failings on government surveillance and executive power, with Holder also uninspiring on financial crime. For the nation’s first African-American Attorney General, these blind spots limit the substantive progress he achieved towards making the United States more just.