Mr. Barr’s recent actions and statements position the Attorney General and, by extension, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others. These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the Attorney General in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice. We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct, in order to assess Mr. Barr’s actions as Attorney General and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary.

The authors listed several public statements by Barr that demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental principle of impartiality that is required by the chief law enforcement officer in the country.

1. Barr’s speech at the University of Notre Dame

In his speech, which is now published on the DOJ website, Mr. Barr stated that “the Founding generation… believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man” and that “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.” According to the Attorney General, “they are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and society.” Expressing his view that “Judeo-Christian values… have made this country great”—while simultaneously rejecting the moral basis of secularism and, by implication, other religions (and atheism) as “an inversion of Christian morality,” Mr. Barr vowed to place the Department of Justice “at the forefront” of efforts to resist “forces of secularization.”

2. Barr’s speech at the Federalist Society

Mr. Barr charged that opponents of the Trump presidency’s policies have been “engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.” By contrast, Mr. Barr proclaimed, conservatives “tend to have more scruple over their political tactics” and are more genuinely committed to the rule of law. The Attorney General referred to something he called a “progressive holy war,” characterized, he says, by the use of “any means necessary to gain momentary advantage.”

3. Barr’s speech to the Fraternal Order of Police

Mr. Barr warned at a DOJ awards ceremony that “the American people have to… start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,” and “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”… Mr. Barr did not specify which “communities” were at risk of seeing decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement, but his comment was understood by some observers, not unreasonably, as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police.

4. Barr’s television interview about the release of the report from the DOJ Inspector General

Mr. Barr publicly rejected the Inspector General’s findings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI’s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion. Although that second investigation (which is being supervised by a different DOJ official) is not yet complete, Mr. Barr nevertheless openly discussed his opinions about the likely outcome of that investigation.

The letter also notes that more than 1,000 federal prosecutors objected to Barr’s mischaracterizations about what was included in the Mueller report. They go on to demonstrate that these public statements are in direct conflict with Barr’s own words about the standards that should apply to an attorney general.