A.G. Pam Bondi says Trump sets DOJ policy, all DOJ lawyers are "his lawyers"

Bondi says the independence of the Justice Department is gone. Also: Two federal courts block Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship. Expect appeals.

Shortly after being sworn into office on Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi went from the Oval Office to the Justice Department to do President Donald Trump’s bidding.

Immediately issuing a series of orders — six of which were reviewed by Law Dork — Bondi made clear, sometimes explicitly, her view that the independence of the Justice Department is gone.

“It is the job of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to zealously defend the interests of the United States. Those interests, and the overall policy of the United States, are set by the Nation's Chief Executive, who is vested by the Constitution with all ‘[E)xecutive Power,’“ Bondi wrote in an order titled, “GENERAL POLICY REGARDING ZEALOUS ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.”

She continued:

The responsibilities of Department of Justice attorneys include not only aggressively enforcing criminal and civil laws enacted by Congress, but also vigorously defending presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States. The discretion afforded Department attorneys entrusted with those responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.

When Department of Justice attorneys, for example, refuse to advance good-faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, it undermines the constitutional order und deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers. It is therefore the policy of the Department of Justice that any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination, consistent with applicable law.

In short: Accept and defend Donald Trump’s policies, or you might be fired.

In a second memo, “RESTORING THE INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,“ Bondi laid out the formation of a “Weaponization Working Group” responding to Trump’s January 20 executive order on “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.”

It specifically asserted — quoting from Trump’s order — that “[t]hese steps are required because, as President Trump pointed out following his second inauguration, ‘[t]he prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process.”

The working group is needed because, she wrote, “The reconciliation and restoration of the Department of Justice’s core values can only be accomplished through review and accountability.

The first three tasks that the working group is to examine all relate to Trump or January 6, 2021. They are, she wrote:

• “Weaponization by Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff, who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump, and the prosecutors and law enforcement personnel who participated in the unprecedented raid on President Trump's home.”

• “Federal cooperation with the weaponization by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, their respective staffs, and other New York officials to target President Trump, his family, and his businesses.”

• “The pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions relating to events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021—as distinct from good-faith actions by federal employees simply following orders from superiors—which diverted resources from combatting violent and serious crime and this, were pursued at the expense of the safety of residents of the District of Columbia.”

One of the tasks unrelated to Trump or January 6, notably, is to examine “[c]riminal prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for non-violent protest activity.“

Another order set DOJ’s “general policy” for charging decisions, plea negotiations, and sentencing. In the opening paragraph, Bondi noted that “prosecutorial discretion is bounded by the Constitution, statutes and case law, state and local ethical requirements, and policy decisions set forth by the President.”

In a section on “investigative and charging priorities,” Bondi discussed immigration enforcement and specifically targets sanctuary jurisdictions:

Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise falling to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests. The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and other litigating components of the Department shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution, including for obstructing federal functions in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and violations of other statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. 1324, 1373.

Another order is focused on diminishing civil rights protections, titled, “ENDING ILLEGAL DEI AND DEIA DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES,” tracking Sections 4 and 5 of Trump’s January 21 executive order on “ending illegal discrimination.“

Among other steps, Bondi ordered, by March 1, that the Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy must submit a report with recommendations to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to DEI and DEIA.“ As part of that report, they are to list “[k]ey sectors of concern within the Department’s jurisdiction” and “[t]he most egregious and discriminatory DEl and DEIA practitioners in each sector of concern.“

Two other orders focused on “reviving” the death penalty and responding to former president Joe Biden’s commutation of 37 death sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Both track Trump’s day-one executive order on “restoring the death penalty.” I will have more on these orders in the future.

---

EO to end birthright citizenship blocked — twice

Two federal judges in two days reached two easy decisions blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.

After a Wednesday hearing in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction — with nationwide effect — shortly before the end of the day.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, heard arguments in federal court in Maryland, issuing an opinion stating that she “easily” concluded that plaintiffs met the standard for a preliminary injunction.

“The President’s novel interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent,“ she wrote.

In the order, she blocked implementation and enforcement of the order “throughout these United States” while litigation continues.

Unlike the earlier temporary restraining order issued in the Washington state-led case, however, Boardman’s preliminary injunction can and almost certainly will be appealed.

Appeals from the Maryland federal court go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has nine Democratic appointees and six Republican appointees.

At the same time, a brief preliminary injunction hearing in the Washington state-led case took place on Thursday, and U.S. District Judge John Coughenour — the Reagan appointee who expressed sharp skepticism of the order during the January 23 TRO hearing — quickly issued a preliminary injunction in that case as well.

[Update, 2:07 p.m. ET: Coughenour’s order is also nationwide:

If and when an opinion follows, I will update further.]

Appeals from his Seattle-based federal court go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has 16 Democratic appointees and 13 Republican appointees.

[Update, 9:25 p.m.: Coughenour issued his opinion, which was direct in its conclusion:

Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department filed its notice of appeal of Coughenour’s decision.

DOJ has not yet, however, filed a notice of appeal of Boardman’s decision.]