Sympathy for the Devil: That DOJ Lawyer Who Denied Kids Soap
The latest contender for the most-hated lawyer in the land is Sarah Fabian, the DOJ attorney (and one-time Kirkland & Ellis associate) who's now identified as the public face of inhumane treatment of immigrant children by the Trump administration.
June 26, 2019 at 05:35 PM
4 minute read
The latest contender for the most-hated lawyer in the land is Sarah Fabian, the Justice Department lawyer (and one-time Kirkland & Ellis associate) who's now identified as the public face of inhumane treatment of immigrant children by the Trump administration.
You probably know Fabian as the Queen of Mean who suggested that migrant kids in detention aren't entitled to sanitary necessities (like soap or toothbrushes) or decent sleep conditions (concrete floors with lights glaring throughout the night). A week ago, she defended the government's handling of these children when she appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Let me cut to the chase: She didn't come off well. This exchange between her and Judge A. Wallace Tashima was indicative of the tenor of the hearings:
Tashima: It's within everybody's common understanding that if you don't have a toothbrush, if you don't have soap, if you don't have a blanket, that's not safe and sanitary. Wouldn't everybody agree to that? Do you agree with that?
Fabian: Well, I think it's, I think those are, there's fair reason to find that those things may be part of safe and sanitary.
Tashima: Not “may be.” “Are” a part. Why do you say, “may be”? You mean there's circumstances when a person doesn't need to have a toothbrush, toothpaste and soap for days?
When I read those exchanges, I thought—as you probably did—that she was a cold, cold defender of an indefensible policy.
But when I viewed the 10-minute video of the hearing (not the heavy-handed four-minute video), my view shifted: Fabian was no Cruella de Trumpvil. Arguably, she deserves some sympathy.
To me, she was badly cast as a Trump defender. She looked uncomfortable, as if she'd rather sit through a funeral. And she did a terrible job. She stumbled. She hesitated. And she seemed embarrassed.
My impression is that she barely tried to defend the administration's position.
Yet, rather than putting blame on her boss, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who's the puppeteer, she's the one on the hot seat. For instance, one-time Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean told The New York Times, she “needs to be fired and prevented from ever holding another government job”—an ironic statement, considering that if she didn't argue the government's position, she might have also been fired.
Which brings me to my larger point: I have no doubt other DOJ lawyers are in a similarly untenable position—that is, advocating for an administration whose policies they find reprehensible.
Indeed, there are hints that Fabian is a reluctant foot soldier. For starters, the New York Times reports that she's a registered Democrat who joined the Justice Department during the Obama administration.
And in response to the criticisms she got about the recent hearings, Fabian wrote a long personal message to her friends on Facebook that was obtained by NBC News. Along with statements that she was misunderstood, there was this: “I think I share many people's anger and fear at times over the future of our country, and I want to work to make it better too.”
You could read that as Fabian making herself look more neutral. To me, however, there's a distinct hesitancy about where all this is headed, a tone that's un-Trumpian.
Some will criticize her for taking up the government's mantle on one of the administration's most despised policies. But not everyone can afford to ditch an unpleasant job. And who knows how the task fell on her lap? Perhaps it's considered a high-profile assignment. Or maybe she drew the short straw.
All we know is that she did her job—icky as it may be.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSkadden's Big China Cuts and What They Mean for the Market
It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
4 minute readAbout to Become a Partner? Here's What to Know About Your Newfound Wealth
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250