5 Reasons Fired AG Sally Yates Stands Against Trump

With the firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates late Monday, President Trump has made it clear there is no room for dissent, and no moral compass, in his increasingly authoritarian regime.

“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House statement said. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”


On Friday, Trump issued executive orders banning war refugees from Syria from entering the U.S. and suspending entry from six other Muslim counties for 90 days. Immediate implementation of that order Saturday morning led to chaos at airports across the country and globally, extensive spontaneous protests and a series of federal district court rulings suspending the directive on multiple grounds for being unconstitutional.   
 
Take a look at the letter Sally Yates sent to the White House that caused her firing. It clearly explains why the nation’s top law enforcement official decided to stand with U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution and the Department of Justice’s historic mission to protect minorities, not a presidential decree that was ill-prepared, poorly executed and institutionally damaging.

Here is the full letter, broken down into five thematic sections.

1. A nation of laws, not a dictatorship. Yates began her letter by saying that as acting Attorney General, she had to determine how the Justice Department would defend the executive order when it inevitably would be drawn into court challenges. She wrote:

“On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.”

2. A moral compass, not a rubber stamp. The White House, which issued a scathing statement Monday night accusing Yates of betrayal, said that the executive order had been reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel, the same office that approved the use of torture techniques by the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks. Yates said her responsibility was larger, which is to say that OLC opinions often create narrow justifications that are politically expedient. She wrote: 

“My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.”

3. The order did not come in a vacuum. Here Yates began to lay out how Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his calling for a ban on refugees and visitors from Muslim counties, his administration’s later declarations that the orders were not a Muslim ban, and the 11th-hour manner immigration authorities were informed of its implementation, all raised political, administrative and constitutional difficulties beyond OLC’s review. She wrote:

“Its [OLC's] review does not take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just. Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order.”

4. Upholding the Constitution, not trashing it. Yates says her role as acting attorney general is to ensure that the Justice Department does what its career lawyers are sworn to do—defend and uphold the Constitution based on established legal precedents. The immigration orders didn't meet that legal standard, nor did they fall within what she said was the Justice Department’s historic role—at least in the past 50 years—of upholding civil rights laws and protecting minorities. She explained:

“But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.”

5. Defying the president, leading to her firing. Yates directly challenged Trump’s executive order by concluding that the immigration policies failed to meet basic constitutional and moral tests, and then said she would not assign any federal attorney to show up in court to defend them when challenged by lawsuits, as civil rights attorneys started doing this weekend. When the government doesn’t respond to a lawsuit in court, those who are suing automatically win. She wrote:

“Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”

Yates surely knew her clear-eyed defiance would lead to her dismissal. She was only going to be acting attorney general for a short while anyway, as the Senate was moving ahead with the president’s nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL. But instead of resigning in protest, she took a stand on behalf of all government attorneys who have dedicated their lives to defending civil rights, voting rights, the rights of minorities, and defensible constitutional processes.  

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card

Close

Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.