But those who cheered him one day were bewildered the next as Mr. Holder, the most prominent liberal voice in the Obama administration, took positions giving the government wide authority to keep tabs on Americans.

It happened so often, it prompted a game of amateur psychology among civil liberties groups: Was Mr. Holder, at heart, unsympathetic to issues of privacy and government overreach? Was he overrun by other national security officials? Or had he been persuaded that keeping America safe required taking positions he might otherwise have opposed?

“At the end of the day, does it matter?” Ms. Goitein said. “If civil liberties were on his mind, and we didn’t see it, well, that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.”

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, praised Mr. Holder’s tenure but acknowledged being frequently frustrated.

“You build your legacy when you can, and you cut your losses when you can’t,” Mr. Romero said. “The attorney general cut his losses on civil liberties when it comes to national security.”

No attorney general is without critics, and each leaves a complicated legacy. Mr. Holder has faced criticism for not prosecuting the major figures in the financial collapse. Republicans grilled Mr. Holder and his aides over the flawed Fast and Furious gun trafficking investigation, which led to a vote holding Mr. Holder in contempt of Congress.

But Mr. Holder’s tenure is unique in that his biggest supporters are also among his loudest critics. Groups like the A.C.L.U. cheered his call to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug crimes and his push for prisoner clemency. They applauded when Mr. Holder, like no attorney general before him, cast the drug war in civil rights terms. He spoke of broken families and a cycle of prison and poverty.