Key Takeaways:
• A dozen high-ranking DOJ attorneys were moved to a new sanctuary cities team.
• They faced a choice: accept the transfer or resign.
• The assignment offered no real work beyond basic internet searches.
• Within six months, all the reassigned DOJ attorneys had quit.
• Critics say the move aimed to push out experienced lawyers quietly.
DOJ attorneys sidelined by a sham task force
The Department of Justice moved twelve top lawyers to a new sanctuary cities enforcement group. Shortly after, each DOJ attorney chose to leave. At the time of their reassignment, they were told to accept the shift or resign. Now, six months later, none remain.
What pushed DOJ attorneys to resign?
At first, the new team sounded important. However, the lawyers soon saw they had no real duties. Instead of handling lawsuits against major cities, DOJ attorneys spent their days doing online searches. They even researched public policies they already knew.
One former leader explained that the team did minimal legal work. Rather, it felt like a holding pen. Moreover, the lawyers were told not to talk to colleagues working on big cases against Los Angeles, New York, and Denver. Frustrated, they decided that staying made no sense.
DOJ attorneys call assignment a sham
Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, a former Civil Rights Division chief, left after only six weeks. She said the role was “a sham.” For her and many others, the job offered no chance to argue cases or advise the Justice Department. Instead, they sat idle.
Five people familiar with the group said it seemed designed to frustrate. They explained that the administration preferred newer hires who would follow its political goals. By contrast, these DOJ attorneys valued legal norms and career standards.
Why the move raised concerns
First, many saw the shift as a way to dodge rules. Normally, federal guidelines block big staff changes for 120 days after a new leader arrives. Yet this team formed right before the new attorney general took office. That timing let officials avoid the rule.
Next, the group’s structure drew criticism. Instead of supervising high-profile lawsuits, members did Google-type searches on sanctuary policies. They had no court filings, no briefs to write, and no chance to speak up in major cases. As one insider put it, they were in a “rubber room” to wither away.
Furthermore, DOJ attorneys learned that open defiance would spark lawsuits or public uproar. So instead of firing them outright, leaders quietly moved them to this empty project. Ultimately, it worked. By the end of the six months, every reassigned attorney had resigned.
What this means for legal staff
The mass departure sends a clear signal to career lawyers. It shows that political appointees can wield reassignments as a tool. In turn, it may discourage senior DOJ attorneys from speaking out or questioning new policies.
Moreover, it raises questions about morale. When skilled lawyers feel sidelined, the department loses valuable expertise. In the long run, that could weaken Justice Department efforts on both policymaking and court battles.
Finally, the episode highlights the tension between career staff and political leaders. Career attorneys join the DOJ to follow the law and uphold norms. At times, those goals might clash with an administration’s agenda. This event shows how reassignments can tip the balance.
Impact on accountability and trust
When the public hears about such mass resignations, trust in the DOJ may drop. People expect the department to enforce the law consistently. Yet sidelining experienced attorneys suggests politics over justice.
Furthermore, it could affect future recruitment. Young lawyers might hesitate to join if they fear sudden, pointless transfers. They may also worry about losing jobs for standing up to political pressure.
Meanwhile, other agencies will watch closely. If reassignments become a routine way to clear out critics, similar tactics could spread. That would erode the independence of federal law enforcement across the board.
Lessons learned moving forward
To restore confidence, the DOJ might need to clarify its reassignment rules. Stronger safeguards could limit sudden transfers without real work. Also, informing career staff about the process can prevent surprising ousters.
Additionally, transparency helps. Publicizing the goals of new units and their actual tasks would let everyone see if the team has real purpose. Otherwise, the DOJ risks more scandals and further resignations.
On a broader scale, lawmakers could revisit the 120-day moratorium rule. They could tighten or extend it to cover more types of reassignments. That way, new leaders can still adjust their teams, but not purge critics before oversight kicks in.
Conclusion
In the end, the sanctuary cities enforcement group never took off. Instead, it served as a quiet way to weed out seasoned lawyers. All the reassigned DOJ attorneys chose to resign rather than remain idle. The saga highlights deep tensions between career staff and political leaders. If left unchecked, similar tactics may harm the Justice Department’s reputation and effectiveness.
Frequently Asked Questions
What tasks were DOJ attorneys given on the sanctuary unit?
They mostly did basic online searches and menial policy research. They rarely handled lawsuits or brief writing.
Why did the administration avoid firing them outright?
Leaders feared the backlash and potential lawsuits that a direct firing would cause. Reassignment appeared less controversial.
How did the timing skirt federal guidelines?
The team formed just before a new attorney general took office, bypassing a 120-day rule on staff changes.
What can the DOJ do to prevent such mass resignations?
It could add clearer rules on reassignments, boost transparency, and strengthen protections for career lawyers.