Action Letter

Ensure the Political Independence of the DOJ
 

​

Introduction: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has long been viewed as a pillar of American democracy, entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law without fear or favor. Its independence is vital to ensure that justice is administered fairly and impartially. However, recent actions suggest a troubling shift away from these foundational principles. The prioritization of political considerations over the impartial enforcement of law could undermine the very integrity of the DOJ and threaten the system of checks and balances upon which the U.S. government is built.

​

The Role of the Department of Justice: The DOJ’s core mission is to ensure the fair administration of justice, investigate and prosecute criminal conduct, and protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Its autonomy from political interference is central to its functioning. The principle of equal justice under the law means that individuals should be held accountable for their actions based on evidence and facts, not on their political affiliations or connections.

The Attorney General, who leads the DOJ, is supposed to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, upholding the Constitution, enforcing federal laws, and ensuring that justice is not swayed by partisan or political pressures. The institution is founded on the belief that no person, regardless of their political power or influence, is above the law.

​

The Concern: Recent actions within the DOJ raise serious concerns about the politicization of its operations. Promises made during confirmation hearings that the DOJ would not “play politics” are contradicted by decisions and directives that suggest political motives are influencing key prosecutorial actions.

​

For example, the DOJ’s involvement in efforts to dismiss cases, such as the criminal investigation into New York Mayor Eric Adams, signals an alarming pattern. In addition, the creation of a "Weaponization Working Group" to scrutinize DOJ employees investigating Trump-related matters, including the January 6th investigations, exacerbates concerns. By casting doubt on the impartiality of these investigations and encouraging the firing of employees who do not align with the administration’s political priorities, the department is opening the door to systemic politicization.

​

Moreover, the recent demand for a list of FBI agents involved in the investigation of January 6th raises alarms that the DOJ could be purging or disciplining staff based on political loyalty rather than the integrity of their work. The specter of politicized personnel actions undermines the DOJ’s independence and the integrity of its operations.

​

Constitutional Concerns: The U.S. Constitution establishes the separation of powers, a system that ensures no single branch of government can wield unchecked power. The independence of the DOJ is a key component of this separation. When the executive branch uses the DOJ to pursue politically motivated actions, it breaches the separation of powers and subverts the Constitution’s framework of checks and balances (U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; U.S. Const. art. II, § 1).

​

The idea of an independent judiciary is also enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary is designed to serve as a check on executive power and ensure that all Americans have access to fair trials. When the DOJ is manipulated for political gain, the independence of the judiciary is compromised, as the executive branch’s influence over legal proceedings may undermine the impartiality of the judicial process (U.S. Const. art. III).

​

The Rule of Law and Equal Protection Under the Law: The principle of equal protection under the law is central to democratic governance and is embedded in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1). Under this principle, no individual or group should receive special treatment under the law, nor should any be unjustly targeted or persecuted due to political considerations. The politicization of the DOJ, particularly its decision to prioritize cases based on political alignment, threatens to undermine this fundamental principle.

​

If DOJ actions are based on partisan interests rather than the facts and law, certain groups or individuals could be disproportionately impacted, while others may be granted preferential treatment. This selective application of the law could further erode public trust in the fairness of the criminal justice system and lead to a chilling effect on individuals exercising their rights to free speech, assembly, and protest.

​

Historical Precedents: The politicization of the DOJ is not without historical precedent. Throughout U.S. history, there have been instances where the Department of Justice was used to pursue political objectives, most notably during the Watergate scandal when President Nixon attempted to use the DOJ to obstruct justice. The public outcry that followed the resignation of high-ranking DOJ officials during the "Saturday Night Massacre" underscored the importance of preserving the DOJ’s independence (United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 1974).

​

By dismissing cases for political reasons, targeting individuals based on their political affiliations, or attempting to interfere with investigations, the current leadership of the DOJ risks following in these disreputable footsteps.

The Threat to Democracy and the Separation of Powers: The actions taken within the DOJ raise critical concerns about the weakening of democratic norms. If the DOJ is compromised in its mission to enforce the law impartially, it will no longer be able to serve as a check on executive power. The independence of the DOJ is a safeguard against authoritarianism, and when this independence is undermined, it poses a direct threat to the democratic values that the United States was founded upon.

​

The potential politicization of the DOJ does not only concern individuals directly involved in political investigations; it strikes at the heart of American democracy. It means that legal processes are no longer conducted in a fair, transparent, and unbiased manner. Instead, they become tools to serve the interests of those in power.

​

Conclusion: The erosion of the DOJ’s independence is a cause for grave concern. If the department’s operations continue to be influenced by political pressures, its ability to ensure impartial justice for all Americans will be severely compromised. The integrity of the DOJ must remain intact, and its mission to uphold the rule of law must be protected from partisan influence. As we witness these troubling developments, it is vital for citizens, lawmakers, and legal professionals alike to demand accountability and transparency from the DOJ. The preservation of our democratic principles, the separation of powers, and the fair application of justice depends on the continued independence of the DOJ. Without it, the very foundation of American democracy will be at risk.

Recent Developments: Several key events and concerns reinforce the issue of politicization within the DOJ:

1. Demand for FBI Agent Identities in the January 6th Investigation: The DOJ requested a list of FBI agents involved in the January 6th investigation, raising concerns about potential retaliation against employees who do not align with the administration’s political priorities. FBI agents have filed lawsuits to block the release of their identities, citing fears of political retribution (Politico).

2. Dismissal of the Case Against New York Mayor Eric Adams: The DOJ’s decision to dismiss a federal corruption case against Mayor Adams has raised concerns of political bias, particularly since the case could have had significant political ramifications for Adams’ stance on immigration (WSJ).

3. Creation of the “Weaponization Working Group”: The DOJ has formed a "Weaponization Working Group" to scrutinize personnel involved in Trump-related investigations. The focus on employees and the potential for firings based on political loyalty has raised alarms about the impartiality of the DOJ’s operations (The Atlantic).

4. Kash Patel's Appointment to FBI Leadership: The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Kash Patel, a controversial figure with close ties to former President Trump, to head the FBI. This appointment has sparked concerns about the potential politicization of the FBI under his leadership (Reuters).

Citations:

• U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; art. II, § 1; art. III.

• U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

• United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

• Federalist No. 51 (James Madison), available at The Founders' Constitution, Volume 1, Chapter 9, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.

• Politico

• WSJ

• The Atlantic

• Reuters