Contents

Merrick GarlandEdit

Merrick Garland is a prominent American jurist and public official who has played a central role in the federal justice system for decades. A former federal prosecutor and long-serving judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Garland was the Obama administration’s nominee to the Supreme Court in 2016 and later became the 86th attorney general of the United States under President Joe Biden. His career reflects a deep commitment to the rule of law, due process, and the institutions that undergird American constitutional order. The path from a respected appellate jurist to the nation’s top legal officer has placed Garland at the center of enduring debates about judicial philosophy, prosecutorial discretion, civil rights, and the proper balance between national security and individual rights.

A number of observers on both sides of the political spectrum view Garland as someone who has consistently emphasized procedural rigor, formalism, and deference to established precedents. Critics from the political right have argued that his record—especially his long tenure on the D.C. Circuit and his selection to the Supreme Court in 2016—reflects a judicial philosophy that can be too accommodating to expansive civil rights protections and expansive government power in areas like criminal justice and administrative law. Supporters contend that Garland’s approach underscores the importance of predictable, apolitical application of the law and the preservation of institutional norms, including the independence of the United States Department of Justice and the judiciary from partisan manipulation.

Early life and education

Judicial career

The D.C. Circuit

  • Garland is best known for his service on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one of the nation’s most influential appellate courts. He was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton and became chief judge in 2013, a position he held through 2020.
  • On the D.C. Circuit, Garland earned a reputation for careful, case-by-case analysis and a willingness to engage deeply with administrative and national-security questions that arise at the intersection of Congress, the executive branch, and the courts. His opinions frequently stressed the importance of due process, executive power constrained by statute and precedent, and the need for a principled approach to civil liberties in a complex, security-conscious era.

Supreme Court nomination (2016)

  • In 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy. The nomination was met with intense partisan dispute in the United States Senate, and the majority leadership led by Senate Republicans chose not to bring Garland’s nomination to a vote, arguing that the next president should fill the vacancy. The decision to withhold consideration became a focal point in debates over constitutional norms, Senate procedures, and the proper role of the judiciary in political life.
  • Critics in the political right argued that the decision set a precedent for politicizing the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, while Garland’s supporters framed the choice as upholding the constitutional process and the idea that such a momentous appointment should reflect the will of the voters through the election that determines the next president. The episode left a lasting imprint on how many Americans view the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in selecting the nation’s high court.

Attorney General of the United States

Appointment and approach

  • Garland was appointed as the 86th attorney general of the United States in March 2021, serving under President Joe Biden. In this role, he oversees the United States Department of Justice, a central pillar of American governance responsible for enforcing federal law, protecting civil rights, and ensuring public safety.
  • The attorney general’s mandate, as presented by Garland and his supporters, centers on applying federal law with seriousness and consistency, safeguarding the integrity of law enforcement, and maintaining the balance between security needs and the due process guarantees that underpin the American legal system.

Policy priorities and actions

  • A consistent theme of Garland’s DOJ leadership has been prioritizing violent crime reduction, combatting organized crime, and addressing issues such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, and public corruption. Officials and supporters argue that a strong, law-based response to crime is essential for public safety, confidence in the justice system, and the protection of victims.
  • Civil rights enforcement is emphasized as a core mission, including protecting voting rights, ensuring equal protection under federal law, and defending religious and individual freedoms within the framework of the Constitution. Critics on the political right have argued that the DOJ under Garland can appear aggressive in pursuing perceived political targets, while supporters contend that the department must apply the law impartially to all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
  • The department’s approach to administrative law, regulatory enforcement, and national-security matters has reflected a preference for process and accountability, with an emphasis on transparency and adherence to statutory authorities. In debates about the proper role of federal power, Garland’s leadership is often characterized by a commitment to the constitutional principles that undergird both national security and civil liberties.

Controversies and debates

  • Independence of the DOJ: Garland’s tenure has been scrutinized for signs of political influence or deference to political leadership. Critics argue that the DOJ should operate with a high degree of insulation from partisan pressures, particularly in investigations that carry political implications. Proponents respond that the department’s work is inherently political in some contexts, and that professional standards, rules, and procedures are designed to keep investigations fair and evidence-based.
  • Hunter Biden investigations: The DOJ’s handling of the Hunter Biden case became a focal point in partisan debates. Supporters of Garland emphasize that the department pursues cases based on evidence and statutory authority, while critics allege that political considerations are influencing charging decisions or plea negotiations. This remains a subject of public discussion about accountability and the appearance of equal treatment under the law.
  • January 6 investigations and prosecutions: The DOJ’s response to the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol has been a major demonstration of the department’s willingness to pursue politically sensitive cases. Supporters contend that these prosecutions uphold the rule of law and deter political violence. Critics claim that the breadth and intensity of prosecutions have had uneven political overtones or implications for civil liberties, and they argue for careful application of prosecutorial discretion within due process constraints.
  • Immigration and border enforcement: The DOJ’s role in immigration-related enforcement is another area where policy disagreements arise. Garland’s position is often framed within the broader legal framework governing immigration, executive authority, and statutory limits, with conservatives arguing for stricter application of immigration laws and critics urging balance with due process and humanitarian considerations.
  • The balance of law and norms: A recurring point of contention concerns how aggressively the government should pursue and prosecute political actors, protesters, or activities tied to elections and public policy. From a perspective that stresses orderly governance and constitutional norms, the aim is to ensure that enforcement serves the interests of all citizens, without privileging one side of the political spectrum over another.

Notable cases and initiatives

  • While serving as attorney general, Garland has overseen a range of high-profile investigations and enforcement actions aimed at maintaining public safety and upholding civil rights. The department’s work includes issues related to voter rights, white-collar crime, and national-security investigations, among others. Critics and supporters alike reference these actions in evaluating the department’s trajectory, its independence, and its adherence to due process.
  • The administration’s legal policies and enforcement priorities are connected to broader debates about the proper scope of federal power, the role of local and state authorities, and how to balance criminal justice reform with the need to deter crime and protect victims. These debates often involve questions about how the courts interpret federal statutes, executive branch authority, and the constitution’s protections for individual rights.

See also