As Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates refused to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from six Muslim-majority nations. The administration dismissed her in January 2017.
Harvard Political Review: You started your career in commercial litigation. What brought you to the Department of Justice (DOJ)?
Sally Yates: I had been in private practice for about three years. I enjoyed the practice, but I did not feel like it was as fulfilling as I wanted my legal career to be. I went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not expecting that I would stay there for anywhere close to as long as I did. I thought I would be there for a few years and go back to private practice, but once I got there, I was totally captivated by the mission of the DOJ. [I] believed so strongly in what we were doing, I had a hard time imagining doing anything else, so I found myself still there 27 years later.
HPR: When you stepped into the role of acting attorney general, how did you envision the holdover period?
SY: It was supposed to be, and traditionally has been, an uneventful time. It is usually a time where everything just says status quo, as it was in the prior administration. It is a strong tradition in the DOJ for the Deputy [Attorney General] to stay on as the Acting [Attorney General] between administrations, given the national security role and the public security role the DOJ has. It is especially important for there to be continuity during that time, but it is also a tradition that things just stay as they are. I certainly was not expecting as tumultuous a time as it was.
HPR: What made President Trump’s executive order different from the other laws you have been asked to defend in court?
SY: First, after having examined the executive order and having talked with others in the Department, I was not convinced that it was lawful or constitutional. Beyond that, to defend it was going to require DOJ lawyers to advance a defense that was not grounded in truth. That specifically [was] that the executive order had absolutely nothing to do with religion, when I believed that President Trump’s statements, when he was a candidate and after he had been elected, reflected that that was in actuality the motivation. The DOJ just cannot be part of advancing something that is not based in truth.
HPR: I also want to ask you about your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. How would you assess the quality and the progress of the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia?
SY: I cannot give you a good answer. One, the things that I know are based on information that I had when I was with the Department, matters that are still under investigation. With respect to the other stuff, I know what everybody else knows, what they read about in the media. I will say I have complete confidence in [Robert] Mueller, not only in his ability to get to the truth but [also] in his determination to get to the truth. That is exactly the kind of person the American people should want in charge.
HPR: In your first tweet as a private citizen, you promoted an op-ed you published about criminal justice reform. Why did you decide to focus your advocacy in this area?
SY: It is something that I have been heavily involved in for a long time now, going back to when I was an [Assistant U.S. Attorney] and then especially as U.S. Attorney and Deputy Attorney General. This was something I spent not only a lot of time on but [also something] that I believed is essential for the fairness of our system and the safety of our communities. I had worked on sentencing reform, on prison reform, and a variety of issues. It was actually in response to an op-ed that Attorney General Sessions had done about a change in charging policies specifically that I was concerned was stoking fear rather than having an open debate about policy.
HPR: You called that ideology the “lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key” approach. What do you see as the prosecutor’s role in perpetuating that?
SY: Prosecutors certainly [have the] responsibility to enforce the law and hold people accountable when they violate the law. I believe in that. I have tremendous respect for prosecutors, but implicit in that is the response should be proportional, and sentencing should be fair. Not only should we focus on enforcement but we should also ensure that we are focusing on preventing crime and on reentry, ensuring that people [coming] out of prison have the tools they need to be successful. If we care about safe communities and justice, we will focus on those other two prongs. Yes, it is the role of the prosecutor to hold people accountable when they violate the law, but that should always be done in a manner that is just and fair and proportional.
HPR: What do you see as prosecutor’s role in addressing criminal justice reform in the capacity of enforcing the law and with respect to those other two prongs you mentioned?
SY: Prosecutors have a unique responsibility with respect all three of those prongs. The job of the prosecutor is not just to put people in prison. It is to build safe communities. Safe communities take all three prongs, not just the enforcement prong. Likewise, I do not think prosecutors can hide behind the [job]. Your job is to seek justice. Justice means holding people accountable, and sometimes it means sending people to prison, but the punishment should fit the crime. That has been my concern with respect to some of our laws, and specifically drug mandatory minimums that I believe are disproportionate to the wrong done.
HPR: In light of that advocacy work, how do you see your role in public service in the years to come?
SY: I am not sure. I hope that I will be able to have a role again in public service. It is in my bones. I believe in it, and I hope to have another opportunity, but it is hard to know what the future will hold.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
This interview has been edited and condensed.