Eric Holder

  • January 23, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Rena Steinzor, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law, and President of the Center for Progressive Reform. Steinzor is also author of the new book, Why Not Jail? Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction from Cambridge University Press.

    Candice Anderson was 21 when she lost control of her Chevrolet Cobalt in a moving stall caused by a defective ignition switch, drove into a tree, and killed her fiancĂ©. Two years later, in 2006, Texas police charged her with reckless homicide. Her parents liquidated their retirement account to pay for her defense. She pled guilty, spent five years on probation, paid $10,000 in fines, and had to live with the shame of the crime on top of the grief of the accident. In 2014, General Motors (GM) sent Anderson a letter explaining that her accident was the company’s fault. A judge in Texas cleared her criminal record a few weeks ago.

    The Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into GM’s conduct and the next attorney general will decide whether and how to charge the company. President Obama’s nominee, Loretta Lynch, will need to make a break with the misguided policies of her predecessor, Eric Holder, when the GM case hits her desk.

    Under Holder, the Justice Department has handled white collar criminal cases involving the largest companies in the world with “deferred prosecution agreements,” a form of settlement that does not require the defendant to acknowledge any criminal culpability, no matter how heinous the crime. Instead, these special deals require the defendant to pay large sums of money in civil penalties. Given their ample financial resources, such sums end up being an affordable cost of doing business. 

    Deferred prosecution agreements undermine the straightforward application of white collar criminal laws that punish everything from racketeering and fraud to deadly violations of health, safety, and environmental laws. The Obama Justice Department has entered roughly twice the number of deferred prosecution agreements as the George W. Bush administration and has been rightly criticized for embracing the corrupt notion that some firms may be “too big to jail.” 

  • October 7, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Eric Garcia explains in The New Republic how taxpayers are paying millions due to voter ID laws.

    Elias Isquith provides another take on voter ID laws, arguing for Salon that Attorney General Eric Holder understood the stakes of these laws.

    In The Huffington Post, Geoffrey R. Stone asserts that the Supreme Court took a “reckless risk” in declining all seven of the same-sex marriage cases.

    Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Holt v. Hobbs. Nina Totenberg of NPR provides an overview of the case that provides a new test of religious freedom.

    Andrew Cohen writes for Brennan Center for Justice’s blog on a new Supreme Court case that questions whether judicial candidates can solicit money.

    In Slate, Elliot Hannon reports on a ruling from a U.S. District Court that the policing of the Ferguson protests was unconstitutional. 

  • September 26, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight challenges the assertion that someone like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not be confirmed to the Supreme Court today.

    In the New Republic, Yishai Schwartz looks at the possible cases the Supreme Court could hear on same-sex marriage and argues the Court should follow the lead of the U.S. Court for the Tenth Circuit.

    The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with protecting majority rights argues Garrett Epps for The Atlantic.

    Geoffrey R. Stone writes for The Daily Beast on the mixed legacy, particularly on issues of civil liberties, of Eric Holder.

    In Slate, Jamelle Bouie presents a more positive message of Eric Holder’s record, and argues that the partisan environment was his major challenge. 

  • September 26, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Alex Kreit, Associate Professor of Law, Director, Center for Law & Social Justice, Co-Director, Criminal Law Fellowship Program, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Kreit is also author of the ACS Issue Brief, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy.”

    When Gil Kerlikowske took office as drug czar four years ago, he said he was going to retire the concept of the war on drugs. During Obama’s first term, however, his policies did not live up to the bold rhetoric.  There were a handful of reforms -- perhaps most notably, a reduction (though not elimination) of the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. But at its core, federal drug policy remained almost entirely unchanged between 2009 and 2012.

    In recent weeks, the Obama administration has turned its words into action by tackling one of the most significant and criticized features of the drug war: mandatory minimum sentencing.

    Enacted in the 1980s, the mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws were the embodiment of the “war on drugs” mentality.  Indeed, it’s difficult to think of another federal law or policy as closely linked to the drug war. 

    Last month, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new charging policy, instructing federal prosecutors not to seek mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases that met certain criteria.  With some of the criteria left open to interpretation, I wrote last month that only time would tell the policy’s true impact. Will the Department of Justice closely monitor local prosecutors to ensure compliance and consistent interpretation of the policy?  Or, will federal prosecutors be given the leeway to circumvent or narrowly apply the new policy?

    While it will take at least a few more months to know the answers to these questions, last week Attorney General Holder issued a second memo that provides reason for optimism. Holder’s most recent memo expands the new policy by applying it to defendants who have already been charged and encouraging prosecutors to follow the guidance even in cases where the defendant has already pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing, where it is “legally and practically feasible.”

    This development is a hopeful sign that the Department of Justice is serious about its new policy. 

  • March 22, 2013

    by Heejin Hwang

    “Clarence Earl Gideon, defend yourself.” With those words fifty years ago, Abe Fortas, who represented Clarence Gideon’s appeal in front of the Supreme Court, highlighted the isolating circumstances regularly faced by indigent defendants without representation. But upon its unanimous ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court foundthat all citizens -- rich or poor -- were constitutionally guaranteed a right to counsel, declaring that no one facing criminal charges would have to navigate the legal system alone.

    As we commemorate the legacy of Gideon this week, however, our criminal justice system continues to abandon defendants, and defenders, alike. Delivering one of the keynotes at ACS’s inaugural Student Convention in early March, Stephen Bright, President and General Counsel of the Southern Center for Human Rights, spoke of his clients’ hopelessness. For example, he noted the people with cases before the Texas Supreme Court, 92 percent of them do not have a lawyer.  One homeless woman on trial, Bright said, chose to go to jail, because at least then she would be fed and “sheltered.”

    As noted yesterday during a national ACS symposium on Gideon several experts said too many states have proven obstacles to ensuring Gideon’s promise. Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that “America’s indigent defense systems exist in a state of crisis” and announced $1.8 million in funding to “improve access to criminal legal services and strengthen indigent defense across the nation.” This is promising, but more action is needed to ensure that states are aware of the funding and spend it appropriately. From 2005 to 2010, the Department of Justice administered 13 grant programs to support indigent defense systems; yet, a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that “among the 9 grants …, two-thirds or more of state, local, and tribal respondents … reported that they did not use these funds for the specified purpose, due to competing priorities.” Moreover, “no more than 54 percent of grantees or public defender offices responding to GAO’s surveys were aware that such funding could be used to support indigent defense.”

    ACS’s inaugural Student Convention brought together nearly 200 law students from across the country and focused on the state of indigent defense 50 years after Gideon.  Speakers and practitioners celebrated the landmark case but also took an unabashedly introspective look at themselves, rallying their colleagues to take their constitutional responsibility more seriously.