The Department of Justice is suffering from a wave of resignations. Departing attorneys and legal counsel are, reportedly, done with the bogus lawsuits and abuse of our country’s civil rights laws. To make matters worse, the DOJ is pushing for an investigation into Renee Good while simultaneously rejecting pleas to look into Jonathan Ross.
Stacey Young, former DOJ Civil Rights attorney and current Executive Director of Justice Connection, divulges her expertise to Jen during their insightful interview. From Trump‘s weaponized DOJ and misuse of civil rights law, to the unfair targeting of vulnerable groups, Young exposes the consequences of a prejudiced justice department. Young and Jen also discuss the shocking DOJ campaign to investigate Renee Nicole Good and not Jonathan Ross, remedies for state prosecution for federally pardoned crimes, and other updates on Minnesota.
Stacey Young is the Executive Director of Justice Connection. She served 18 years as a senior attorney at the Department of Justice, first in the Civil Division and later in the Civil Rights Division. Young founded the DOJ Gender Equality Network in 2016 and served as its president until the Trump administration pushed for it’s closure in 2025.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Chen Rubin, energy. We’re delighted to have back with us Stacey Young, who is the Executive Director of Justice Connection. They help, advise and work with former DOJ attorneys, who are leaving in droves. Welcome, Stacey, it’s good to see you again.
Stacey Young
Great to see you, too.
Jen Rubin
The horrific events in Minnesota, seem to have spurned the resignation of now six, last time I checked, attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota. Let me just start with that. Are most individuals, without speaking to these in particular, who work in U.S. attorneys’ offices from that area, in other words, they have roots in the community, they know the community, they practice in that area, is that the normal pattern?
Stacey Young
That’s very normal. Most people who do work in one of the 94 U.S. Attorney’s offices are from the area. And because they’re from the area, they really do have the trust of the communities that they’re there to protect. And they also are usually there for a very long time, and have very deep and strong relationships with local law enforcement. They work collaboratively with them when they investigate cases, when they prosecute cases. That is the opposite of what we’re seeing in Minnesota right now, and that’s the opposite of what we’re seeing in U.S. Attorney throughout the country.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Now, one… many of these, including the most senior person there, was actually working on a project that Trump seemed very, very interested in, which was investigation of fraud in social services. So it wasn’t as if these people were rebels or were in opposition to some of the initiatives of the Trump administration, and yet we saw 6 of them leave. Talk to us about, first of all, how unusual that is. I know we’ve gotten used to this because we’ve had so many other mass resignations, it comes to mind, the Southern District of New York, but it’s still unusual. Without getting into any particulars of these individuals, at least publicly, the reasons that have been advanced, why they left.
Stacey Young
Not only did somebody work on the fraud investigations, but the person who led those investigations for years resigned. And the deputy on those cases resigned as well. And I should say, the person who led those cases, for what it’s worth. also was on the Robert Herr Special Counsel team, which investigated Joe Biden. It is… It would have been unheard of before this administration to have a mass resignation like this over decisions by DOJ leadership. This kind of thing just didn’t happen before this administration. It is unprecedented, and it’s extremely concerning. And if this administration cares as much about fraud in Minnesota as it claims to. you would think that it would do anything in its power to keep the leadership team in place in that office. And I think what this says is that this administration’s concern about fraud isn’t really genuine. Instead, it’s far more concerned about militarizing ICE and terrorizing citizens of Minnesota, which it’s doing right now. And the resignations, I think, couldn’t speak louder to the dissent among citizens, including dedicated public servants in DOJ, and we should all be paying attention to what that message says.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. They have not spoken publicly, but it’s been reported that there were a bunch of reasons why they may have left. First, they were directed to investigate the victim. Is there any justification for doing that? Really, ever, but particularly in this case, where we’re not talking about someone who, you want to determine if, she was, engaged in some criminal conspiracy or other, malfeasance. What? Would ever justify investigating the victim of a crime like this.
Stacey Young
You know, we all saw the video ourselves. Of course, I’m not on the ground, I haven’t seen all of the evidence, but when you see a video that’s as clear as that, it really causes any rational person to think. what is the government doing right now? Why on earth would you be investigating the victim’s widow instead of the federal law enforcement official who shot the gun three times? We saw how that car was moving. We saw what the players in that scenario were doing. It really boggles the mind as to what DOJ is prioritizing right now. And, you know, with respect to the six resignations, Attorney General Bondi went on Fox News the other night, and was complaining about these resignations, and announced that she actually terminated those prosecutors. What happened was they tendered their resignations earlier this week. Attorney General Bondi went on Fox News and said. Well, they’re planning on, you know, using their accumulated annual leave And they’re going to stay until that leave is exhausted, which is exactly what most people who leave DOJ do. If you accumulate, you know, leave, which you earned, sometimes you’ll stop doing your job, but you’ll technically stay in the role so that you can, you know, use the leave you earned and you owned. So she said the taxpayer shouldn’t have to, you know, pay for these individuals to stay in their jobs and use their leave. So she said, I’m breaking news right now. They are fired. What that means is they’re still going to be paid out for their leave, because they are entitled to that leave, and because those terminations were illegal, now they have a right to sue. So that’s going to cost taxpayers a whole lot more money to both defend those lawsuits, and when those lawsuits likely prevail at the end, because these terminations are patently illegal under civil service protection laws. The government’s gonna have to pay out, potentially, a huge amount of money. So, you know, this decision by Attorney General Bondi is illogical and cruel, which are words that you could use to describe what’s happening in Minneapolis right now.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Just because they’re fascist doesn’t mean they aren’t stupid, and they appear to be, over and over again. Another factor that may have contributed to their resignation is this decision that they were going to box out entirely state and local investigators. Not share any of the evidence, that would be ballistic information, that would be employment history, for example, of this individual, any other evidence that they actually controlled. How unusual is that, and is there any justification for that?
Stacey Young
I cannot imagine there’s any justification. It is so important that federal law enforcement work in tandem, work in partnership with state and local law enforcement. State and local law enforcement are on the ground already. They are usually the first ones to go to a scene, to analyze what’s going on, to assess evidence, to gather evidence, to talk to witnesses. And federal law enforcement, oftentimes the FBI, will also go to the scene as well, and everybody will work together. It’s imperative that DOJ work in tandem with state and local law enforcement to make sure those the trust exists to make sure that local communities, feel like the federal government is working for them. In this case, that community feels like DOJ is working against them. They are, DOJ is basically treating state and local law enforcement like they’re the enemy. And this is just something you do not see under normal circumstances. And not only are state and local law enforcement being boxed out, the Civil Rights Division is being boxed out, too. And that is extremely concerning. The Civil Rights Division, which is the division where I worked for a number of years during my DOJ tenure, Spec… there’s a section in the division that specializes in this type of case, that specializes in situations where law enforcement seemingly violated individuals’ constitutional rights. There’s a statute, a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 242, that criminalizes a government official’s deprivation of an individual’s constitutional rights, if that’s done under the color of law. That is the statute that one would think would apply to this situation. And when you have an incident like this, especially one that’s of national importance, that’s gained an enormous amount of publicity. the Civil Rights Division’s criminal section, prosecutors in that section, would always go to the scene and see whether a serious investigation should be opened. the Department of Justice decided not to do that in this case, and that is, from everybody I’ve talked to, unprecedented. The second in charge of DOJ said, there is no reason at this point to believe that there was any kind of civil rights violation. That is preposterous. And we have seen… Six prosecutors from the that section, resign, tender their, their resignations or retirement notices, recently as well. So we are seeing, an enorm… many senior, leaders from DOJ leave the department and deprive the department of valuable institutional knowledge, and that is really destabilizing the offices that are left behind.
Jen Rubin
Couple important points. The Justice Department was founded to enforce constitutional rights, to do just this kind of work. That’s the origin of the Justice Department. It’s ironic that they are now decimating its historical, legal heritage. You mentioned that a number of people have resigned. They, my understanding is that they resigned prior to Minnesota. Because this is not the only incident that has disturbed or has contradicted that department’s legacy. Talk to us a little bit about this building record of outrage, that may have resulted in a large number of those people resigning.
Stacey Young
Yeah. You know, we have seen throughout the Civil Rights Division that the division is not enforcing the laws it was charged with enforcing. We have seen about 75% of the lawyers in the Civil Rights Division leave. Over the past year. That is stunning. That has… the division has been gutted. And… the head of the division, Harmeet Dillon, has basically said this division is not enforcing the civil rights laws that Congress passed, most of which were 70 years old. The division is simply not doing the work it exists to do. And instead, it’s really using civil rights laws as a cudgel to target marginalized communities instead of using those laws to protect them. It’s… it’s… it’s a devastating state of affairs, and, you know, it’s gonna take… years, years for the division to recover. The loss of Top talent, the loss of brilliant lawyers who dedicated their lives to civil rights. it’s really hard to contemplate what that means, and what it’s going to mean for Americans whose civil rights are simply not going to be enforced. And instead, what the Civil Rights Division is focusing right now on is targeting trans kids, is, you know, launching these investigations and litigation against DEI, is, using civil rights laws to protect gun rights. or suppress, you know, the vote in states throughout the country. It’s a perversion of civil rights laws, and it’s an outrage.
Jen Rubin
One of the other factors, that we’ve seen, excuse me, through all of this is that And it’s not just this case. Donald Trump and another cabinet secretary come out, and they pronounce the conclusion of the investigation before it’s even begun. This woman is a terrorist, this was justified, he’s a hero, he was acting in self-defense. There’s a basic legal principle that you don’t do that, because, of course, that taints the entire investigation. I can’t remember another president, ever doing that, and in fact, we saw under President Biden that he refused to comment on anything involving the various investigations and prosecutions of Donald Trump, because he didn’t want to take the investigation. How unusual and unprecedented is that, and what does that say about any credibility that any investigation DOJ might undertake?
Stacey Young
White House interference in DOJ’s work is not unprecedented. We saw it in Watergate. And after Watergate, DOJ took major steps to reform its procedures. It instituted new rules and guardrails, and one of the things it did was that it created what’s called a contacts policy, which means there should be very little and very careful contact between DOJ and the White House, because DOJ enforces laws that Congress passes. DOJ should not be a political arm of the administration. There needs to be independence if the rule of law is going to mean anything. And since Watergate. presidents, on both sides of the aisle have been… generally been very good about maintaining distance from the department. You know, I… when I was at DOJ, and there was something you wanted to talk about with the White House, it was really difficult to do, as it should be. You had to go through, like, this long process to communicate anything with the White House, and that was absolutely Absolutely critical to maintaining an unbiased, objective, ethical DOJ. That contacts policy has been shredded. It still exists in the Justice Manual, which is kind of the Bible of DOJ, but it is not being followed. This president has declared himself the law enforcer in chief, which is preposterous, and what we’re seeing is that he installed his former personal lawyers in the top leadership position… positions in DOJ. Attorney General Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, Amel Bovee, who is now a Third Circuit judge, but was a top leader in DOJ. They know that they answer to one person, and that is the president. And if that’s how DOJ operates, if that’s how the principal law enforcement institution in the federal government operates, the rule of law in any meaningful way really can’t survive. I mean, DOJ is the… it’s the one agency in the federal government that has its mission in its title. And we’re just not seeing much justice come out of the Justice Department right now.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Last question for you. To their credit, the county and the attorney general’s office have indicated we’re going to continue to investigate. How concerned are you that, number one, the feds are going to destroy, or lose evidence, or make it impossible? And secondly, that with so much evidence kind of taken away from them. Whether those local authorities can find enough evidence to at least get to probable cause and perhaps a conviction, if there is such evidence.
Stacey Young
I think it’s going to be a lot more difficult for state officials to investigate and possibly prosecute down the line this case, because the federal government is not right now, being cooperative. In terms of destroying evidence. You know, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota has one political appointee. The rest of the prosecutors there are career employees. Career DOJ employees are some of the most ethical, upstanding people you will ever meet. I have no doubt that the career employees in Minnesota, that the career employees in DC and anywhere else, any other offices that are involved in what’s happening in Minnesota, I have no doubt that they will do the right thing, that they will not destroy evidence, that they will not follow orders that they believe are illegal or unconstitutional or unethical. We have seen DOJ litigators and prosecutors resign from their jobs to avoid following such orders and I expect that we will be seeing that, unfortunately, many times in the future.
Jen Rubin
And to be clear, although this administration may be refusing to cooperate, the last time I checked in most jurisdictions, and in the federal government, there’s no statute of limitations on murder. There’s no statute of limitations, or in, in fact, in federal crimes, the very least, you have 5 years to bring a lawsuit. So, even if these people are not, willing to investigate now. In a few years, there may be another administration that is willing to cooperate, that is willing to share evidence. So, there will not be an escape hatch, that these people can climb through.
Stacey Young
What?
Jen Rubin
We hope.
Stacey Young
For an hour.
Jen Rubin
may pardon them, and that’s, that’s kind of where I was going. He can’t pardon people for state crimes, and all of this hooey that we’re hearing from Todd Blanch who should know better, and from the vice president who should know better. Shame on Yale Law School for giving this guy any kind of, degree, is that they don’t have absolute immunity. They have partial immunity, but there still is a way of prosecuting them. Is that feasible? Is that possible? That even if Donald Trump pardons this guy from all federal criminal prosecution, that it would still be possible under state law. to pursue justice for, Renee Goode and her widow.
Stacey Young
It certainly will be possible for the state to prosecute anybody for murder. I expect that the federal government, under this administration at least, will assert some kind of immunity defense. I think it’s untrue that a federal law enforcement agent would have absolute immunity. Again, the office I discussed earlier in the Civil Rights Division does just this. pursues, cases where law enforcement officials, including federal law enforcement officials, seem to have violated, laws that prohibit constitutional violations. So… the absolute immunity claim, is pretty preposterous. We’ll see how the case plays out. I certainly, don’t know how a court is going to decide, ultimately, whether immunity applies in this case, but to say there’s blanket absolute immunity and you can never pursue a federal law enforcement official for murder, is ridiculous.
Jen Rubin
And let’s be clear what that is. That is Todd Blanch and others saying to ICE, you can go out and kill anyone without consequence. That’s false. People who listen to that, are in for a world of hurt. But let’s be clear, he is telling these people to go use force indiscriminately, and they will have their back. And that is Fascism, plain and simple. The state using unrestricted violence against its citizens. So, Stacy, thank you for your expertise, thank you for all you’re doing to find work for those principled attorneys who leave justice. And one day in the near future, for historical purposes, and maybe for legal purposes, the story will be told of all of these individuals, what they saw, what they heard, what they know, and we will have, I think, the most damning record of illegal, unconstitutional. behavior that we have ever seen in this country’s past. So, thank you so much, and we will look forward to having you back soon.
Stacey Young
Thanks so much, I look forward to it.
