U.S. Justice Department headquarters in Washington. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

Working at the U.S. Department of Justice is like joining a storied sports franchise with a long history of excellence, like the Yankees or the 1980s Lakers. The obvious difference is that DOJ lawyers often take a pay cut to join, but the value they glean is intrinsic. The best part of the job is being able to stand up in court and say these words: “I represent the United States.”

Every government lawyer remembers the first time he or she uttered those words because they represent something larger than the individual attorney or case. The words carry with them an obligation to uphold the integrity of the Justice Department as an institution dedicated to the rule of law and to maintain legal consistency across presidential administrations. That is why so many former DOJ lawyers use terms like “honored,” “privileged” and “humbled” when they discuss their tenure at Main Justice.

That's why the present state of affairs at the DOJ is so hard to watch. Norms are being smashed as the department sends career attorneys for cringe-worthy appearances to defend administration positions. Exhibit A is the train wreck that the U.S. Census litigation has become. The government asserted that it needed a decision by June 30 to allow the census forms to be printed, which led the U.S. Supreme Court to bypass the intermediate court of appeals and issue a decision a few days before the deadline. Faced with the high court's decision finding the justification posed by the U.S. Department of Commerce for a proposed citizenship question “contrived,” the DOJ—through the career attorneys assigned to the case—notified two district courts that the census forms would be printed without the question. And then President Donald Trump destroyed whatever credibility the lawyers had left by tweeting that the DOJ's action was “fake news” and insisting that the census go forward with the question. The very next day, the lawyers had to backtrack and apologize to the courts.

It is not surprising that the career lawyers who worked on the case sought to withdraw. Many private lawyers would fire a client who provided facts, repeated by the lawyer in a brief, that turned out to be false. It's one thing to defend a change in government policy, but quite another to defend a contradictory set of facts. And while the president has abandoned the effort to include a citizenship question on the census, the damage to the DOJ's credibility remains.

As someone who devoted three decades to a career at the DOJ, I find it difficult to watch the credibility of a great institution erode. And many other former Main Justice lawyers are aghast at what they are witnessing. Over the years, DOJ lawyers have worked hard to build and maintain the credibility of the department. We have always taken seriously the notion that government lawyers have duties that go beyond the zealous advocacy of the private bar. And now the Trump administration is trading on the credibility of career DOJ lawyers to achieve short-term goals. In so doing, it drains the reservoir of good faith the DOJ built up through the years and it tarnishes the reputations of career lawyers who are trying to both do their jobs and maintain their dignity.

Controversial Cases Aren't New

Every administration asks career DOJ lawyers to work on controversial cases. I worked on quite a few of them, even if I disagreed with the underlying policy at issue. Nonlawyers may wonder how a government lawyer can do that. While everyone has a line they will not cross or a case they would rather not handle, government lawyers recognize the fundamental difference between the wisdom of a policy and whether the policy is legal or constitutional. Like every citizen, they express their views on policy at the ballot box. But they are not so arrogant as to believe their personal policy preferences should be equated with what is legal or constitutional.

Perhaps more important, a government lawyer's function is to defend acts of Congress and Executive Branch policies if a reasonable argument can be made in their defense. That is the closest thing to a sacred tenet within the Justice Department. From administration to administration, government lawyers must take principled positions and make legal arguments that are not dependent upon the political winds of the day.

The Trump administration has seen far more than its share of controversial cases. Yet career DOJ lawyers continue to step up to defend policies with which they may disagree, out a sense of duty and respect for their role. The political leadership of the DOJ knows this and uses it to its full advantage. Many DOJ political appointees have great respect for career DOJ lawyers and do not necessarily want to see them dragged through the mud. But the undeniable effect of an inherently unstable client is a loss of credibility for the client's lawyer.

There is irony in the fact that while the Trump administration relies on career civil servants to defend government actions under the “reasonable defense” premise, the administration abruptly switched positions to argue that the entire Affordable Care Act is invalid (even though a “reasonable defense” certainly could be made in its defense). But while that undermines an important DOJ norm, it pales in comparison to the latest shenanigans in the census litigation.

In his book “A Higher Loyalty,” James Comey speaks of a “reservoir of trust and credibility” that takes many years and many people to build. But it only takes one hole in the dam to drain the reservoir. Well, the dam is leaking. And as the volume drops, so does the value of public service and the credibility of an important institution. It's hard enough to watch from the outside. I can only imagine how hard it is to watch from within.

Matthew Collette is a partner at Massey & Gail and formerly was deputy director of the appellate staff of the Civil Division at the Justice Department and senior counsel to the associate attorney general.