Jeff Sessions

  • January 11, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Alex Kreit, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

    It’s been one week since Attorney General Sessions rescinded an Obama-era memo that had effectively ended federal prosecutions of state-legal marijuana businesses. Under the new policy, it is up to individual U.S. Attorneys to decide whether to go after people who comply with state marijuana laws. So far, the new Department of Justice policy has not resulted in any arrests or prosecutions.

    Why did Sessions make this move and why did he wait so long to do it? After one week, marijuana policy watchers are still left scratching their heads.

  • October 17, 2017

    by Dan Froomkin

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a perplexingly contradictory view of civil rights law when it comes to transgendered people.

    On the one hand, he is enthusiastic about prosecuting murder cases in which the victims were allegedly targeted because of their gender identity. On the other hand, he went out of his way to give employers a green light to discriminate against transgender people in the workplace; rejected the Obama administration interpretation that nondiscrimination laws require schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice;  and defended Donald Trump's half-baked tweet in favor of banning transgender troops.

    The backtracks on transgender protections are among several stark and abrupt reversals from practices during the Obama era that have come under Sessions's watch. One on level, that's not so surprising, coming from the attorney general for a president who on Monday described himself, accurately, as "very opposite" from his predecessor.

  • June 13, 2017

    by Dan Froomkin

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions has never been clear about what exactly he has recused himself from.

    He has arguably violated it at least once already, by participating in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

    Expectations are mounting about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. But if and when Mueller decides to press criminal charges against top Trump officials – not to mention Trump himself -- the pressure to shut him down will become immense.

    How Sessions defines his recusal going forward, therefore, could be hugely consequential should Sessions manage to keep his job and should Mueller manage to do his.

    Senators on the Intelligence Committee will get a chance to question Sessions today, and they could do worse than focusing on that recusal and what he is willing to say it means.

    Specifically, they should get Sessions to say on the record whether or not he is recusing himself from any and all matters that fall under Mueller's remit going forward -- as well as promising not to fire Mueller or any member of his team.

    The attorney general's official recusal statement on March 2 was an oddly-worded exercise in obfuscation. "I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States," Sessions said.

  • May 10, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Erwin Chemerinsky, ACS Board Member; Dean and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law

    President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey creates an urgent need for a special prosecutor, independent of the White House and the Justice Department, to investigate whether members of the Trump campaign team and administration violated federal law. Comey had been leading the investigation into Russian influence in the presidential election and whether crimes occurred. Comey’s termination, six years before the end of his term, raises the question of whether this was done to squelch this investigation and who will lead a thorough inquiry that will insure that the prosecution of any who violated federal laws.

    There is strong evidence that crimes were committed. Michael Flynn, and perhaps others, appear to have violated federal statutes requiring registration as an agent of a foreign government and disclosures of payments from foreign governments. Moreover, it seems clear that Attorney General Sessions violated federal laws that prohibit lying to Congress.

    Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, asked Sessions in a questionnaire if he had “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day.” Sessions’s answer was "no." During the confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do if he learned of evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.  Sessions replied, “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

  • April 24, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Laura W. Brill, Partner, Kendall Brill Kelly

    It is a pretty safe bet that if, after losing a motion for a preliminary injunction, a fourth-year associate were to go on the radio and say that she was amazed that some judge sitting on an island in the Pacific Ocean could issue an injunction against her client, that associate would not have a job for long. And she would not help matters if her main defense was, “Nobody has a sense of humor anymore.”

    Every lawyer knows this.

    What do we make then of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ comments in response to the preliminary injunction on the president’s travel ban that was issued by the Hon. Derrick K. Watson in federal district court in Hawaii? And what are we as lawyers going to do about it?

    Like so many of you, I have been asking myself questions like this since the presidential election. I still don’t know the answers. But I do believe that this administration’s repeated attacks on the legitimacy of our courts pose a serious threat to the fair administration of justice and the protection of constitutional rights. As lawyers, we have a responsibility to articulate the values that we think are important to a constitutional democracy and to provide a counterbalance so that the public will not be misled. That is why I have chosen to make my views known and to ask other lawyers and law professors to join me in expressing our support for judicial independence. 

    Two months ago, in response to President Donald Trump’s disparaging comments, in which he referred to the Hon. James L. Robart as a “so-called judge” after the injunction barring the first travel ban, I wrote a public letter to Attorney General Sessions, calling on him to ask the president to stop personal attacks on judges and on the legitimacy of the courts.  In a matter of days, 6,400 lawyers and law professor from across the country and the political spectrum signed the letter.