driving near anza-borrego desert state park, ocatillo, ca - usa

DOJ Memo Sneaks In Seismic Changes

DOJ Memo Sneaks In Seismic Changes

January 31, 2025

DOJ Memo Sneaks In Seismic Changes

By: James Trusty

Amidst the tidal wave of Executive Orders, presidential appointments, and policy announcements, it is easy to treat last week’s Interim Policy Memo from the Acting Deputy Attorney General[1] as just another ripple of nominal change that occurs when democrats replace republicans or republicans replace democrats. And, indeed, although there are portions of it that reflect the recurring philosophical tug-of-war over the tough on crime approach first memorialized by Attorney General Thornburgh in 1989, it would be a serious oversight to miss the Memo’s dramatic departure from status quo and even from the first Trump administration’s view of federal prosecutor responsibilities.

The heart of the memo is immigration enforcement. The Memo emphasizes the need for DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to attack cartels and transnational criminal organizations, to reduce violent crime committed by cartels, gangs, and illegal aliens, and to shut down the cross-border flow of fentanyl. Those targets track the Trump campaign’s points of emphasis and come as no surprise. Similarly, the return to the Thornburgh Memo’s aggressive guidance for prosecutors to charge and pursue “the most serious and readily provable offense” signals an aversion to soft plea agreements and “charge bargaining,” where prosecutors low-ball the criminal conduct in a plea agreement to resolve the case. But then it gets interesting.

The Memo establishes that a prosecutor’s discretion to resolve a case with a softer plea is limited to “unusual facts.” It specifically mentions the appropriateness of pursuing the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences in repeat offender drug and/or firearm cases. The Interim Attorney General then turns his attention to the “Faithful Execution of the Immigration Laws,” and the more measurable changes begin. For instance, in announcing the priority of pursuing immigration offenses, the Memo specifically includes Title 8 U.S. Code § 1325, illegal entry by an alien. This is a six-month misdemeanor for simply being illegally inside the U.S., and federal prosecutors are likely to bristle at devoting inordinate time to a simple misdemeanor that could be pursued, well, millions of times across the nation. Historically, U.S. Attorney’s Offices (“USAOs”) with significant immigration issues rarely use the misdemeanor but instead prosecute cases of illegal re-entry after removal for a felony (or better, an “aggravated felony.”) These felony immigration charges can be used as leverage to flip gang members or at least serve as a real deterrent – adding years of federal imprisonment to the equation before the defendant is again deported to his or her country of origin.

Rejecting potential immigration cases is no longer the simple prerogative of the local U.S. Attorney. The Memo requires the prosecutor to disclose declinations as urgent reports directly to the Attorney General, within days or sometimes even hours of the decision. No U.S. Attorney is going to be eager to repeatedly send “urgent” reports to the Attorney General about his or her refusal to prosecute immigration cases. This practical deterrent enhances the power of the Department of Homeland Security – their cases are being prioritized in every way through this Memo.

Similarly, federal programs targeting drugs and gangs (the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, aka “OCDETF”) and Project Safe Neighborhood (“PSN”) which targets guns and gangs, now have to provide resources supporting immigration prosecutions. Making well-funded OCDETF units prioritize immigration offenses reflects a massive power shift away from DOJ and towards Kristi Noem’s DHS.

Not only are the U.S. Attorneys watching their investigators pivot to immigration prosecutions, but the Memo tasks the USAOs with investigating incidents of resisting, obstructing or failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands. In short, “sanctuary” advocates or even prosecutorial inaction are being considered fodder for potential criminal prosecutions. Consistent with that aggressive approach, the Memo fleetingly mentions the DOJ’s new creation of a Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group, which presumably exists to take legal action against inconsistent policies or local practices that thwart immigration enforcement action.

Like many government documents, this Memo buries some juicy tidbits in the footnotes. Specifically, the Memo rescinds earlier memos promulgated by democratic regimes in 2013, 2014, 2021, and AG Garland’s memo from December of 2022. The Garland Memo was essentially a repudiation of the Thornburgh approach – emphasizing a “more individualized approach to prosecution” and urging prosecutors to seek “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” punishment. Somehow that permission slip for mercy was completely ignored in the January 6 prosecutions, as the government invariably asked for higher sentences than the already-severe bench was willing to mete out. But in many USAOs, the Garland Memo’s flexibility, such as ignoring mandatory drug sentencing except in particularly aggravated circumstances, and overtly permitting prosecutors to join the defense attorneys in calling the drug sentencing guidelines too high, gave a green light for local autonomy in plea bargaining. But, as they say, there’s a new sheriff in town.

One last note: it is true that this Memo is framed as a DOJ Interim policy. That could be read to suggest that a confirmed Attorney General might take a different approach. But safe money is on perfect consistency or even expansion of the scope of DHS enlargement at DOJ’s expense. With Pam Bondi likely to be on the job within days, undoubtedly she is well aware of this Memo’s details and that they will certainly survive the transition from interim to term.

[1] https://static.politico.com/66/35/5a5563a1441faa1680058a5a3d1b/memorandum-from-the-acting-deputy-attorney-general-01-21-2025.pdf

 

James Trusty

James Trusty

After 27 years as a prosecutor, James (“Jim”) Trusty brings to Ifrah Law extensive experience in complex, multi-district white collar litigation, especially in matters involving RICO, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986.

How Thick is the Blanket? – Preemptive Pardons as a Presidential Power
White-Collar Crimes |
Dec 6, 2024

How Thick is the Blanket? – Preemptive Pardons as a Presidential Power

By: James Trusty
The Challenging Terrain of White-Collar Sentencing
White-Collar Crimes |
Jun 3, 2024

The Challenging Terrain of White-Collar Sentencing

By: James Trusty
Punishing the Parent – Should the Parents of a School Shooter Be Criminally Liable for their Parental Failures?
White-Collar Crimes |
Apr 16, 2024

Punishing the Parent – Should the Parents of a School Shooter Be Criminally Liable for their Parental Failures?

By: Abbey Block
Was FTX Collapse as Bad as Enron? In sentencing SBF, Judge Kaplan Says Yes
White-Collar Crimes |
Apr 1, 2024

Was FTX Collapse as Bad as Enron? In sentencing SBF, Judge Kaplan Says Yes

By: Jeffrey Hamlin

Subscribe to Ifrah Law’s Insights