US Senate Sets Stage for Swift Confirmation Vote on Barr for AG
Barr, who is currently of counsel at Kirkland & Ellis, is all but guaranteed to be confirmed as U.S. attorney general, thanks to the Senate's GOP majority, but he has still faced intense Democratic opposition.
February 12, 2019 at 06:57 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to advance William Barr's nomination to be U.S. attorney general, teeing up a swift confirmation vote that is expected to take place later this week.
Senators voted, 55-44, to curtail debate on Barr's nomination, with the vote falling largely along party lines. Three Democrats—Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Doug Jones of Alabama—voted to advance Barr's nomination to a final floor vote. One Republican—Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky—opposed Barr, while Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, did not vote.
A final confirmation on Barr's nomination could come as early as Wednesday or Thursday. If Barr—currently of counsel at Kirkland & Ellis—is confirmed, it'll be his second time leading the Justice Department. He was previously U.S. attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration. Before that, Barr had also served as a deputy attorney general and headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
Barr is all but guaranteed to be confirmed, thanks to the Senate's GOP majority.
But the nominee has still faced intense Democratic opposition, thanks in part to a legal memo Barr sent to Justice Department officials and members of Trump's personal legal team in June 2018 about Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In the memo, Barr described a possible obstruction of justice inquiry into the president as “fatally misconceived.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has described Barr's letter as “disqualifying.”
Democrats have also expressed dissatisfaction over Barr's refusal to commit to the full release of Mueller's findings to the public, once the special counsel's work has concluded.
Barr, during his confirmation hearing, vowed to “provide as much transparency” as possible in sharing Mueller's findings with lawmakers and the public. But the nominee's response also left open the possibility that he would only release his summary of Mueller's findings to the public, rather than releasing the special counsel's own prepared report.
“I am going to make as much information available as I can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations,” Barr said during his hearing.
Some of Barr's defenders have said the nominee wouldn't have been able to meet Democrats' demands for a commitment to releasing Mueller's findings.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school, told senators last month that Barr could not “commit in advance” to releasing information he had not yet reviewed because “part of his duty is to protect” grand jury-related or privileged information.
“He's duty-bound to review that,” Turley told Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.
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 AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
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