By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Merrick Garland, after serving as Attorney General, has rejoined Arnold & Porter’s Appellate & Supreme Court practice group. His career, marked by a prestigious background and Supreme Court nomination stalled by Republicans, saw him lead the Department of Justice under President Biden. While criticized for a perceived lack of aggressive prosecution of the Trump administration, Garland ultimately appointed a special counsel to investigate the classified documents case. His return to Arnold & Porter is considered a significant gain for the firm, leveraging his extensive legal experience.
Read the original article here
Merrick Garland’s return to Biglaw, a prestigious private sector law firm, after his tenure as Attorney General has sparked considerable controversy. The central criticism focuses on his perceived failure to adequately prosecute Donald Trump during his time in office, leaving many to believe his new role is a continuation of that perceived inaction. The perception is that he effectively shielded Trump from legal repercussions, a notion fueled by the slow pace of investigations and what many see as a lack of decisive action against significant allegations.
The frustration stems from the belief that Garland’s handling of investigations into Trump, specifically concerning the January 6th Capitol attack and the mishandling of classified documents, was far too lenient. The argument is that the investigations were slow-walked, allowing Trump valuable time, potentially hindering the potential for successful prosecution. Critics point to the appointment of special counsels as a tactic to delay or deflect rather than a genuine commitment to pursuing justice. The delay itself is seen as a critical failure, allowing Trump to evade accountability.
Many observers feel Garland’s actions, or lack thereof, directly contributed to the ongoing political polarization and rise of Trumpism. The perceived lack of consequences for Trump’s actions emboldened his supporters and arguably encouraged further transgressions. This inaction, critics argue, has eroded public trust in the justice system, creating a sense of impunity for powerful individuals who might otherwise face legal ramifications for their conduct.
The swiftness with which Garland secured a lucrative position in the private sector after leaving office further fuels the outrage. The transition seems seamless, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the perception that his tenure as Attorney General primarily served to protect powerful figures from accountability rather than upholding the rule of law. The timing of the move, coupled with his previous performance, suggests to many that he has prioritized personal gain over the public good.
Some defend Garland, pointing to the inherent difficulties of prosecuting a former president, the complexities of legal processes, and the need to navigate constitutional free speech considerations. They acknowledge the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel as a positive step, suggesting that Garland ultimately did what he could within the constraints of his position. However, this argument fails to address the core criticism: the significant delay and perceived lack of vigor in pursuing investigations.
The widespread anger and disappointment toward Garland are palpable. His perceived lack of action is seen as a monumental failure of leadership, one that has potentially irreversible consequences for the American political landscape. Many believe that a more decisive Attorney General could have significantly altered the trajectory of recent political events, possibly preventing further erosion of democratic norms.
Ultimately, Garland’s move back into Biglaw isn’t merely a career transition; it’s a potent symbol of the perceived failures of his time as Attorney General. It represents, for many, a missed opportunity to hold a powerful individual accountable for serious alleged crimes. It’s a narrative of inaction, perceived complicity, and a subsequent lucrative reward that underscores the public’s deep disillusionment with the justice system’s ability to address political wrongdoing. The question remains whether his new role is simply a continuation of his previous perceived strategy – avoiding the prosecution of powerful individuals – or merely a coincidence. The lack of clarity only fuels further criticism.