Why Eric Holder Says Civil Rights is His Top Priority After the Bush Years

March 12, 2009 RSS Feed Print

If the nation's new attorney general wanted to get people's attention on the subject of race, lambasting Americans as "cowards" was a headline-grabbing first step. In the wake of the election of the nation's first black president, its first black attorney general delivered a powerful indictment on race relations. "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Attorney General Eric Holder told Justice Department employees in a speech in February marking Black History Month.

As the country's top lawman, Holder is now in a position to tackle racial inequity. But first, he'll have to rebuild the stable of government attorneys who specialize in prosecuting complex discrimination cases. Under the Bush administration, political appointees effectively chased away the bulk of the experienced attorneys in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which handles cases of discrimination in housing, employment, and voting rights. During the past eight years, more than half of the division's career staff left or was reassigned, and its focus shifted away from traditional civil rights cases. Remaking the division is "Priority 1 right now," Holder told the National Association of Attorneys General last week. "Some of the stuff that I learned in the transition reports were frankly pretty shocking," he said. "We're going to need help as we try to reinvigorate, rebuild what has always been a great division but that has suffered a lot in the last eight years."

More broadly, the Justice Department was ground zero for a series of the most contentious fights between Bush administration political appointees and career civil servants. Yet it took six years and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys for Congress to launch investigations into activities at the department. Even now, lawmakers are still trying to get answers from former White House staffers, including Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, about the role of politics in those dismissals.

The machinations at the Civil Rights Division never received the same level of public attention as the fired attorneys. But the woes of the legendary division, which enforced school-desegregation busing and affirmative action, do illustrate the corrosive impact that political appointees can have on the business of an agency, according to investigators. "The division was the flagship of enforcement of civil rights, and now it's not even a shell of its former self in reputation or in practice," says Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Investigations by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that political appointees improperly hired lawyers based on their political views and pushed out or reassigned senior staff attorneys. In addition, the division's new hires had far less experience with civil rights cases than those hired under previous administrations, according to statistics released by the Justice Department. The inspector general's report even concluded that a former chief of the Civil Rights Division made false statements to Congress about the hiring practices and said that the combination of his actions rendered him "unsuitable for federal service." The investigations led to a new policy compelling political appointees to receive briefings on prohibited personnel practices.

The Bush administration fundamentally altered the division's mission. Between 2001 and 2005, the division brought only a single case of employment discrimination, and no cases of voter discrimination, on behalf of African-Americans. Instead, division resources were directed toward immigration, human trafficking, and issues of religious free speech, all of which had traditionally been handled by other divisions. As Holder put it during his Senate confirmation hearings, "In the last eight years, vital federal laws designed to protect rights in the workplace, the housing market, and the voting booth have languished."

For Holder, civil rights have long been a personal issue. In 1963, his sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, had to be escorted to her college classes at the University of Alabama by U.S. marshals. Braving protests by angry crowds and the state's governor, George Wallace, she was one of the first two black students to attend the school.

The Civil Rights Division, which Holder has called the "conscience of the Justice Department," has around 350 lawyers who manage litigation relating to everything from housing to voting rights. Created in 1957, it was charged with enforcing an ever changing landscape of civil rights legislation. Since then, its mandate has expanded beyond racial issues to include discrimination based on gender, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin.

Tags:
Eric Holder,
civil rights,
Obama administration,
Department of Justice

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

ROSENBERG v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Docket No. A-6440-08T3.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 3, 2010.

Decided May 26, 2010.

Ted M. Rosenberg, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Lisa Sarnoff Gochman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney; Ms. Gochman, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Lisa, Baxter and Coburn.

PER CURIAM

In Rosenberg v. New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, 396 N.J. Super. 565, 581 (App. Div. 2007) (Rosenberg I), we remanded to the Law Division with instructions that the court should review anew the documents plaintiff Ted M. Rosenberg had sought from defendant, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ). We concluded that the judge's August 28, 2006 letter opinion upholding DCJ's refusal to provide the documents lacked specific factual findings and was so conclusory as to frustrate appellate review. Ibid. Consequently, we directed the judge upon remand to make detailed findings of fact concerning the contents of the documents, to apply the Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 113 (1986), factors, and to provide specific reasons, on a document-by-document basis, explaining why each document was protected, or not protected, from disclosure. Rosenberg I, supra, 396 N.J. Super. at 581.

We agree with plaintiff's contention that the remand opinion issued on February 25, 2009, and adopted by order of August 11, 2009, falls short of satisfying the instructions we issued in Rosenberg I. Consequently, we remand again and direct the Law Division to issue an opinion that satisfies those instructions.

I.

In our opinion in Rosenberg I, we set forth in considerable detail the events leading up to plaintiff's document request, made under the common law right to know doctrine, as well as DCJ's response to that request. Supra, 396 N.J. Super. at 570-75. We incorporate that discussion by reference here. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that in 2000, plaintiff ran unsuccessfully for the position of Chair of the Burlington County Democratic Party. Id. at 570. At the time of the election, plaintiff was Solicitor of the Borough of Palmyra. Ibid. After the election, John J. Gural, Jr., a Palmyra councilman, notified plaintiff that he was being subjected to considerable pressure from two colleagues at the Moorestown engineering firm at which he worked to refuse to reappoint plaintiff as Palmyra Borough Solicitor when plaintiff's term expired. Ibid. Gural reported these events to DCJ and provided DCJ attorneys with secretly made tape recordings that supported his allegations. Ibid. DCJ's investigation, which spanned several years, ultimately resulted in the two initial targets of the investigation pleading guilty, but only to tax evasion. Id. at 571. The wider criminal investigati

leonard of NJ 10:11AM June 06, 2010

Father Says He Prohibited Phone To Protect Daughter

GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- A New Jersey mother and father weren't able to connect on cell phone privileges for their daughter -- so they took it to court.

The 13-year-old girl -- a high school freshman -- lives with her mother but visits her dad weekly.

Her father, Frank Mellace, prohibited her from using the cell phone at his house because she was getting so many calls.

Mellace told the judge he was trying to protect his daughter after learning she had described herself on the Internet as "single, sexy and sweet" -- and told people to call her.

The girl's mother says her daughter carries the phone for safety reasons.

The judge said the girl can use her phone whenever she's at Mellace's home -- but told her she was not allowed to use it during dinnertime.

Mellace is appealing.

Wanda of NJ 1:04AM May 17, 2010

Murray Kushner drinks from a bitter cup

Imagine the rage that must be boiling within Murray Kushner's resentful little body.

Today, the Star-Ledger ran an article called "Kushner's Cozy Pad" (house photo on teaser page, but town misidentified as Long Branch) that details the return to prominence that brother Charles Kushner can expect now that his house arrest has ended.

Moreover, in a delicious slice of ironic justice, it appears that it's Murray's business ambitions that are being hampered by the sullying of his family name -- the very sullying Murray himself engineered when he hired a spy to steal his brother's documents and then cooperated with the US Attorney to pressure Charles into a settlement favorable to Murray.

The Courier Post reports that Cherry Hill's decision to allow residential development on the property of a synagogue "is now beset by conflict-of-interest concerns." Apparently, Richard Shapiro, the attorney for the developer, JAMM Realty of Bridgewater, is also the chairman of Cherry Hill Democratic Committee.

That's the same committee that unexpectedly kicked Council Vice-President Joyce Walker, a "well-respected African-America woman" off its ticket, allegedly at the behest of South Jersey kingmaker George Norcross and his enforcer, State Sen. John Adler (whose wife Shelley also serves on the Cherry Hill council).

At the zoning board's Aug 17 meeting, Walker asked her fellow members "to divulge if they also sat on the Democratic committee" -- the group that kicked her off the ballot after two successful terms. Six of them did. Shapiro attacked Walker repeatedly when she decided to run as an independent after being shown the door by Norcross and his henchmen.

And now Walker and others are using JAMM's connection to Murray Kushner, who owns at least 10% of the company, to suggest that strings were pulled on behalf of "the Kushner family, who are large political campaign contributors."

It's almost certainly a frivolous linkage. But there's something very intriguing about the idea of Murray Kushner's business being damaged by the charge of "Kushner political influence" means that Murray's being hoisted on his own petard. After engineering the slander of his own brother, Murray Kushner is now paying the price for damaging the family name.

rosetta of NJ 3:14AM October 26, 2009

Photo Galleries

Before and After the Joplin Tornado

A look at Joplin one year after the deadly tornado.

advertisement

Latest Video