An Investigation of Allegations of 

Politicized Hiring and 

Other Improper Personnel Actions in 

the Civil Rights Division 

U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility 

July 2, 2008 

(Released Publicly January 13, 2009) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND................................................................ 4

I. Legal Standards................................................................................ 4

II. Organization of the Civil Rights Division............................................ 6

III. Leadership of the Civil Rights Division, 2001 to 2007........................ 9

IV. The Attorney Hiring Process in the Division..................................... 11

A. Hiring by Sections: 2001 to February 2002........................... 11

B. New Hiring Procedures: February 2002................................. 11

C. Memorandum on Personnel Practices: June 2007................. 13

CHAPTER THREE: ATTORNEY PERSONNEL DECISIONS: HIRING, 

TRANSFERS, CASE ASSIGNMENTS, AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

ACTIONS WITHIN THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION ............................ 14

I. Hiring ............................................................................................. 15

A. Schlozman’s Role in the Hiring Process.................................. 16

B. Additional Evidence and E-mails ........................................... 20

C. Schlozman’s Statements ........................................................ 25

D. Hiring in Civil Rights Division Sections Not Supervised by 

Schlozman............................................................................. 26

E. Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program Hiring...... 28

F. Statistical Overview of Hiring of Career Attorneys................... 32

G. Analysis................................................................................. 33

II. Transfers, Case Assignments, and Other Personnel Actions............. 35

A. Forced Transfers of Appellate Section Attorneys..................... 35

1. Transfers of Attorneys A, B, and C................................ 36

2. Replacement Attorneys................................................. 41

3. Complaints About the Transfers ................................... 41

4. Analysis ....................................................................... 42

B. Case Assignments and Other Personnel Actions..................... 43

i 
ii 

1. Factual Overview.......................................................... 43

2. Analysis ....................................................................... 45

III. Management Failures...................................................................... 45

A. Factual Overview ................................................................... 46

B. Analysis................................................................................. 50

CHAPTER FOUR: SCHLOZMAN’S FALSE STATEMENTS 

TO CONGRESS............................................................................... 53

I. Statements About Hiring................................................................. 53

II. Statements About Appellate Section Attorney Transfers .................. 59

III. Additional Statement About Hiring While Interim 

United States Attorney .................................................................... 61

IV. Criminal Referral ............................................................................ 63

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 64

APPENDIX: Career Attorney Hiring, Civil Rights Division, 2003 – 2006 ...A-1

INDEX OF TABLES AND FIGURE 

Table 1: Civil Rights Division Responsibilities and Attorney Staffing 

by Section (May 2008)............................................................. 8

Figure 1: Civil Rights Division Management, July 2001 – 

August 2007......................................................................... 9

Table 2: Political and Ideological Affiliations of Civil Rights Division 

Attorneys Hired from 2003 to 2006....................................... 33
CHAPTER ONE: 

INTRODUCTION* 

This report describes the results of the joint investigation by the 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR) into allegations that political or ideological 

affiliations were considered in hiring, transferring, and assigning cases to 

career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 

(Department). Career attorney positions in the Department are subject 

to the merit system principles of the Civil Service Reform Act, which 

prohibit discrimination in the federal work place based on, among other 

things, political affiliation. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. Complaints that 

politics was affecting the attorney hiring process in the Civil Rights 

Division received widespread public attention in April 2007 as a result of 

allegations by Civil Rights Division employees that Bradley S. Schlozman, 

a former senior Division official, hired lawyers for career positions based 

on their political or ideological affiliations. 

Our investigation examined: (1) whether the Civil Rights Division 

used political or ideological affiliations in assessing applicants for career 

attorney positions, including the hiring processes for experienced 

attorneys and entry-level attorneys hired through the Attorney General’s 

Honors Program; (2) whether political or ideological affiliations resulted 

in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Division, such 

as attorney transfers and case assignments; (3) whether the Division’s 

senior management failed to recognize and correct any improper 

consideration of political or ideological affiliations in the hiring and 

treatment of career attorneys; and (4) whether Schlozman made false 

statements in his testimony to Congress about these matters. 

_____________________ 

* We referred the findings from our investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 

the District of Columbia in March 2008. We completed this written report of 

investigation in July 2008. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office informed us on January 9, 2009, of its decision to 

decline prosecution of Schlozman. The Interim U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, was 

recused from the matter and the decision. 

We are now releasing our July 2008 report of investigation. The only changes 

we made to the report as completed in July 2008 are the correction of two typographical 

errors, and a few minor corrections based on suggestions by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

1 
This OIG/OPR joint investigation was conducted by a team 

consisting of OIG and OPR attorneys, an OIG special agent, and OIG 

program analysts. Our investigation examined the hiring practices of the 

Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2007. However, most of the 

allegations focused in particular on the period of Schlozman’s tenure in 

the Division, May 2003 through March 2006. 

The OIG/OPR team interviewed more than 120 current and former 

employees of the Civil Rights Division, including political appointees, 

career attorneys, and human resources personnel. We interviewed the 

current Acting Assistant Attorney General (AAG) and 3 former AAGs for 

the Civil Rights Division; all but one of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys 

General (DAAG) during the period of our investigation; all of the current 

and former section chiefs in the Division; and numerous attorneys, both 

career and politically appointed, who worked in the Division.1 Many of 

those we interviewed are no longer employees of the Department. 

We were unable to interview several former Civil Rights Division 

officials no longer employed at the Department who declined our request 

for interviews. For example, Bradley Schlozman, who served as DAAG, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Acting AAG in the 

Division, declined our interview request through his counsel. In 

addition, J. Michael Wiggins, who also served as a Principal DAAG for the 

Civil Rights Division, and Hans von Spakovsky, former Counsel to the 

AAG, declined our requests to interview them as part of this 

investigation. Jason Torchinsky, former Counsel to the AAG, did not 

respond to our written request for an interview. 

We reviewed thousands of pages of documents pertaining to the 

career attorneys hired in the Civil Rights Division from 2002 to 2007. 

The documents included position announcements, résumés and 

application materials, and other documents relating to interviews and 

hiring. The team also reviewed over 200,000 e-mails of relevant 

personnel in the Civil Rights Division, including Schlozman.2 We also 

reviewed documents relating to the transfer or attempted transfer by 

Schlozman of three career attorneys from the Division’s Appellate 

Section. 

 1

 We interviewed 84 of the 112 attorneys hired in the Division’s 8 major sections 

during the period from March 2003 to March 2006.

2 The e-mails recovered do not represent the entire universe of e-mails sent or 

received by the relevant persons during the period. Because of the Department’s 

procedure for backing up and preserving e-mails, some e-mails were not recoverable. 

2 
This report is divided into five chapters. Following this 

Introduction, we discuss in Chapter Two the laws, regulations, and 

Department of Justice policies applicable to the use of political or 

ideological affiliations in hiring or other treatment of career employees; 

the structure and management of the Civil Rights Division during the 

period of our investigation; and the hiring process in the Division. 

Chapter Three contains our factual findings and analysis, focusing 

on the consideration of political or ideological affiliations in the hiring of 

career attorneys, the effect of such affiliations on the transfers and case 

assignments of career attorneys, and management failures that enabled 

the conduct we identified to occur. Chapter Four describes Schlozman’s 

statements to Congress and the evidence that we believe demonstrates 

their falsity. Chapter Five summarizes our conclusions and 

recommendations. 

3 
CHAPTER TWO: 

BACKGROUND 

I. Legal Standards 

In this section we discuss the federal laws and Department policies 

relevant to the issue of whether it is illegal to consider political or 

ideological affiliations in hiring attorneys for career positions or in 

transferring or assigning cases to career attorneys. We conclude that 

federal law and Department policy prohibit the use of political or 

ideological affiliations to assess applicants for career attorney positions 

in the Department and in the management of career attorneys. 

Positions for Department attorneys fall into two broad categories: 

political and career. It is not improper to consider political affiliations 

when hiring for political positions. However, as discussed below, both 

Department policy and federal civil service law prohibit discrimination in 

hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations. This 

prohibition applies to experienced attorneys, as well as entry-level 

attorneys hired for positions in the Attorney General’s Honors Program. 

The Department’s policy on non-discrimination is contained in the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.1(a) of 28 C.F.R. Part 42, 

Subpart A, which states: 

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to 

eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 

sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, 

political affiliation, age, or physical or mental handicap in 

employment within the Department and to assure equal 

employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for 

employment (emphasis added). 

While the regulation does not define “political affiliation,” courts 

have considered “political affiliation” to include “commonality of political 

purpose, partisan activity, and political support.” See, e.g., Curinga v. 

City of Clairton, 357 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2004). 

The Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM), the 

Department component with primary responsibility for overseeing career 

attorney hiring, states on its website: 

The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/ 

Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where 

otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination 

4 
based on color, race, religion, national origin, politics, 

marital status, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, status 

as a parent, membership or nonmembership in an employee 

organization, or personal favoritism (emphasis added).3

In addition to Department policies, the Civil Service Reform Act 

(CSRA) prohibits the Department from discriminating in hiring for career 

positions based on political affiliation. For example, the CSRA states that 

federal agencies must adopt hiring practices for career employees in which 

selection and advancement should be determined solely on 

the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair 

and open competition which assures that all receive equal 

opportunity. 

5 U.S.C. § 2301(b). 

Moreover, the CSRA sets forth a series of merit system principles 

by which federal agencies are to manage personnel decisions. One 

principle directly addresses employment discrimination: 

All employees and applicants for employment should receive 

fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel 

management without regard to political affiliation, race, 

color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or 

handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their 

privacy and constitutional rights. 

5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(2) (emphasis added). 

Another section of the CSRA also prohibits the consideration of 

political affiliation in personnel matters involving career employees. 

Section 2302(b)(1)(E) prohibits “discriminat[ing] for or against any 

employee or applicant for employment . . . on the basis of . . . political 

affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or regulation.”4 

Section 2302(b)(12) of the CSRA makes it unlawful to “take or fail to take 

any other personnel action if the taking or failure to take such action 

violates any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, 

 3 See www.usdoj.gov/oarm/attvacancies.html. 

4 Use of political affiliation violates Section 2302(b)(1)(E) only when it also 

violates some other “law, rule or regulation.” We asked the Department’s Office of Legal 

Counsel (OLC) whether 28 C.F.R. 42.1(a) qualified as a predicate for a violation of 

Section 2302(b)(1)(E). OLC responded that “[o]ur informal conclusion is that 

28 C.F.R. § 42.1 (2007) and the First Amendment constitute ‘law[s], rule[s] or 

regulation[s]’ that prohibit considering political affiliation in hiring career attorneys to 

Excepted Service Schedule A positions at DOJ.” 

5 
the merit system principles contained in section 2301 of this title.” As 

noted above, one merit system principle is that “all employees and 

applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in 

all aspects of personnel management without regard to political 

affiliation . . . .” 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(2). 

These policies and laws do not define “political affiliation.” 

Nonetheless, identifying candidates as “liberal” or “conservative” by the 

activities or organizations with which they are affiliated can be used as a 

proxy for political affiliation and thus can violate CSRA’s prohibition. 

Using ideological affiliation can also create the appearance that 

candidates are being discriminated against based on political affiliation. 

In addition, using ideological affiliation can violate the requirement that 

the government use hiring practices for career positions that ensure it 

identifies the best qualified applicants through fair and open 

competition. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301 (b) (1) – (2). 

As a result, Department policy and the CSRA both prohibit using 

political affiliation and may also prohibit using certain ideological 

affiliations in hiring and taking other personnel actions with regard to 

career attorneys. 

II. Organization of the Civil Rights Division 

The Department’s Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing 

federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 

disability, religion, and national origin. As of May 2008, 324 attorneys 

and 324 support staff were assigned to the Division, all stationed in 

Washington, D.C. The Division is divided into eight major sections: 

 Appellate, 

 Criminal, 

 Disability Rights, 

 Educational Opportunities, 

 Employment Litigation, 

 Housing and Civil Enforcement, 

 Special Litigation, and 

 Voting.5 

 

(Cont.) 

5 The Division has three additional sections that are very small: the 

Coordination and Review Section; the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related 

6 
The attorneys in each of the sections are supervised by section chiefs and 

deputy section chiefs. 

Table 1 shows the number of attorneys assigned to each section 

and the responsibilities of the sections as described by the Division’s 

website. 

 

Unfair Employment Practices; and the Office of Complaint Adjudication. We did not 

review these sections because they collectively hired only two attorneys during the 

period of review, one of whom was promoted from a non-attorney position within the 

section after completing law school. 

7 
Table 1: Civil Rights Division Responsibilities and 

Attorney Staffing by Section (May 2008) 

Section Responsibilities 

Office of the Assistant 

Attorney General 

(9 attorneys, including Assistant 

Attorney General, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, and 3 Deputy Assistant 

Attorneys General)

Establishes policy and provides executive direction and control over 

the enforcement actions and the administrative management 

activities within the Division. 

Administrative Management 

(2 attorneys) 

Provides administrative support to the Division. 

Appellate 

(21 attorneys, including chief, 

principal deputy chief, and 

2 deputies) 

Handles civil rights cases in the federal courts of appeals and, in 

cooperation with the Solicitor General, in the United States Supreme 

Court. Also provides legal counsel to other components of the 

Department regarding civil rights law and appellate litigation. 

Complaint Adjudication 

(8 attorneys, including 

1 supervisory attorney) 

Reviews cases provided to it by Department components or the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission alleging employment 

discrimination by employees of the Department and renders a final 

decision for the Department. 

Coordination and Review 

(9 attorneys, including chief and 

deputy) 

Coordinates the enforcement by federal agencies of various statutes 

that prohibit discrimination in programs that receive federal financial 

assistance. Also investigates complaints of discrimination against 

certain recipients of assistance from the Department. 

Criminal 

(54 attorneys, including chief 

and 5 deputies) 

Prosecutes violations of federal criminal civil rights statutes. 

Disability Rights 

(41 attorneys, including chief 

and 5 deputies) 

Implements the Department’s responsibilities under Titles I, II, and 

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Educational Opportunities 

(16 attorneys, including chief 

and 2 deputies) 

Enforces federal statutes that prohibit public school officials from 

engaging in discriminatory practices involving both elementary and 

secondary schools and institutions of higher learning. 

Employment Litigation 

(36 attorneys, including chief 

and 5 deputies) 

Enforces against state and local government employers the 

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal 

laws prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on the basis 

of race, sex, religion, and national origin. 

Housing and Civil Enforcement 

(42 attorneys, including chief 

and 5 deputies) 

Enforces the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act, and Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit 

discrimination in places of public accommodations such as hotels, 

restaurants, and public facilities. 

Office of Special Counsel for 

Immigration-Related Unfair 

Employment Practices 

(14 attorneys, including special 

counsel and deputy) 

Investigates and prosecutes employers charged with national origin 

and citizenship status discrimination. Also investigates allegations 

of document abuse and retaliation as a result of the Immigration Act 

of 1990.

Special Litigation 

(37 attorneys, including chief 

and 3 deputies) 

Protects the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons 

confined in certain institutions owned or operated by state or local 

governments. Also investigates state and local law enforcement 

agencies regarding patterns or practices of violating citizens’ federal 

rights and enforces the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Voting 

(35 attorneys, including chief, 

principal deputy chief, and 

5 deputies) 

Enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the 

Elderly and Handicapped Act, and other statutory provisions 

designed to safeguard the right to vote. 

Sources: Civil Rights Division website for responsibilities and Human Resources; Director, Civil 

Rights Division, for attorney staffing numbers. 

8 
III. Leadership of the Civil Rights Division, 2001 to 2007 

The Civil Rights Division is led by an Assistant Attorney General 

(AAG) appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The AAG 

has four Deputy Assistant Attorneys General (DAAG), one of whom is the 

AAG’s principal deputy. Three of the DAAGs are “political” appointees, 

who typically are selected by the Attorney General or the White House. 

The Civil Service Reform Act, merit selection laws, and regulations do not 

apply to the selection process or tenure for these political appointees. 

The political DAAGs normally change with each administration. The 

fourth DAAG position is designated as a “career” appointment; that 

DAAG is selected by a merit selection process and remains in the 

position even after a change in administration. 

The DAAGs are assigned responsibility for overseeing the 

management of the Division’s sections. Each DAAG has supervisory 

responsibility for one to three sections. 

The Office of the AAG, which includes the DAAGs and several 

Counsel to the AAG and is often referred to collectively as the “front 

office,” establishes policy for the Division and provides executive 

direction for its management, enforcement actions, and administration. 

Figure 1 displays the names and tenures of the Division’s AAGs 

and DAAGs from 2001 to 2007. 

Figure 1: Civil Rights Division Management, 

July 2001 – August 2007 

Year

Month J A S O D J F M A M J J A S O N J F M A J S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M M J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

AAG

PDAAG

DAAG 

Career

DAAG

DAAG

 Schlozman was PDAAG for about 2 months after Bradshaw's departure, before becoming Acting AAG.

 Driscoll also served as AAG Boyd's Chief of Staff.

Robert Driscoll Wan Kim

A

Sheldon Bradshaw

July 2001 - July 2003

 Acting AAG

N

R. Alexander Acosta

M A J J

Ralph Boyd R. Alexander Acosta

D

J. Michael Wiggins

Asheesh Agarwal

Wan Kim

November 2005 - August 2007

 Bradley 

Schlozman

Acting

2007

Acosta

Loretta King

Bradley Schlozman

2001 2002 2003 2004

Rena Comisac

Grace Chung Becker

Source: Civil Rights Division, Administrative Management Section 

Notes: Wiggins served as Acting AAG for less than 2 months after Boyd's departure.

August 2003 - June 2005 AAG

June-Nov 05

2005 2006

9 
As depicted in Figure 1, the first AAG for the Civil Rights Division 

during the period of our investigation was Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. He was 

confirmed in July 2001 and served as AAG until July 2003. Boyd’s 

DAAGs were, at various times, R. Alexander Acosta, J. Michael Wiggins, 

Robert Driscoll, Bradley Schlozman, and Loretta King. Throughout this 

period, King was the Division’s career DAAG. Acosta was the Principal 

DAAG until he left the Department in December 2002, at which time 

Wiggins became the Principal DAAG. 

Schlozman joined the Department in November 2001, serving 

initially in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. He became a DAAG 

in the Civil Rights Division in May 2003. 

Upon Boyd’s departure, Acosta became the Division’s AAG in 

August 2003. Wiggins, Schlozman, and King continued as DAAGs. In 

addition, Wan Kim was appointed a DAAG. When Wiggins moved to a 

position in the Office of the Associate Attorney General in October 2003, 

he was replaced as Principal DAAG by Sheldon Bradshaw. Bradshaw left 

the Department in April 2005, at which time Schlozman became the 

Principal DAAG. 

In June 2005, Acosta was appointed as the United States Attorney 

in the Southern District of Florida. Schlozman served as Acting AAG for 

the Division for the next 5 months until Wan Kim was confirmed as AAG 

in November 2005. After Kim’s confirmation, Schlozman again became 

Principal DAAG. King was the only other DAAG until early 2006, when 

Grace Chung Becker and Asheesh Agarwal were appointed to DAAG 

positions. 

In March 2006, Schlozman was appointed to serve as the 

U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri on an interim basis. 

Rena Comisac succeeded Schlozman as the Division’s Principal DAAG. 

Schlozman remained in the interim U.S. Attorney position for 

approximately 1 year, until the nomination and confirmation of a 

permanent U.S. Attorney (John F. Wood) in March 2007. Schlozman 

then returned to Washington and took a position in the Executive Office 

for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). He resigned from the Department 

on August 17, 2007. 

10 
IV. The Attorney Hiring Process in the Division 

A. Hiring by Sections: 2001 to February 2002 

Prior to 2002, hiring in the Division was initiated and carried out 

by each of the Division’s eight major sections. When an opening for an 

attorney position arose within a section, the section chief sought 

authority from the Division’s front office to advertise for the position. 

The postings were made for a specific position within a specific section of 

the Division. Once the application period closed, section managers 

(chiefs and deputies) screened applications, decided which candidates to 

interview, and conducted interviews without the involvement of the AAG 

or DAAGs. 

Upon completing the interview process, the section chief 

recommended the section’s choice to the Division front office and sought 

approval to hire that person. Typically, the AAG and the DAAGs did not 

interview the candidate or have any involvement in the process other 

than to approve this request. In fact, the section chiefs we interviewed 

could not recall any instance before 2002 in which their hiring 

recommendation was not approved. 

B. New Hiring Procedures: February 2002 

In February 2002, during the tenure of AAG Boyd, the Division 

changed its hiring procedures. Boyd directed the Executive Officer of the 

Division to issue a memorandum to all section chiefs entitled, “New 

Attorney Hiring Process.” This memorandum described changes in the 

Division’s process for the recruitment and selection of experienced 

attorneys. The memorandum stated that the changes were being made 

to create a more centralized system of recruitment and selection for 

experienced attorney positions in the Division. Boyd told us that he 

instituted these changes both to improve diversity and to ensure the 

consideration of applicants with broader educational backgrounds and 

work experience than were traditionally hired. 

As set forth in the memorandum, the new procedures required 

section chiefs to obtain approval from their supervising DAAG to 

announce an attorney position. The Division’s Human Resources Office 

would then announce the position publicly and also distribute it to 

minority bar associations (among other groups). Upon receipt of 

applications, the Human Resources Office would review and forward to 

the front office the applications of those candidates who met the 

minimum educational and professional qualifications as specified in the 

position announcement. Under the new procedures, the DAAGs had the 

responsibility for reviewing the applications and identifying applicants for 

11 
the section chief to interview. In addition, the DAAGs were instructed to 

forward copies of the applications for all of the applicants to the section 

chiefs. 

The section chiefs’ responsibilities, according to the new process, 

were to interview the candidates identified by the front office and to 

identify and interview other applicants they believed should be 

considered. After conducting interviews, the section chiefs were to 

provide a list to the DAAG with hiring recommendations. The list was to 

include individual written recommendations, addressed to the AAG, 

discussing the recommended applicants’ backgrounds, qualifications, 

credentials, and references. The DAAGs were required to send both the 

section chief’s recommendations and their recommendations (if different) 

to the AAG for review and approval. After obtaining AAG approval to hire 

an attorney applicant, the section chief would work with the Human 

Resources Office to determine the appropriate salary and make a 

tentative offer of employment (contingent on satisfactory completion of a 

background investigation). 

Acosta told us that in 2003, when he served as AAG, he delegated 

hiring authority to Principal DAAG Bradshaw, which was a role often 

assigned to the Principal DAAG. Bradshaw, in turn, said he authorized 

Schlozman, who was a DAAG at the time, to handle most of the 

Division’s hiring, although Bradshaw said he retained final authority. 

Bradshaw said Schlozman was very interested in hiring issues and was 

willing to put the time required into the assignment. Bradshaw also said 

that, during this period, he reviewed Schlozman’s hiring 

recommendations, inquired about the recommendations of the section 

chiefs, and reviewed résumés for prior work experience and law school 

performance. 

On December 1, 2003, AAG Acosta issued a memorandum revising 

the February 2002 hiring procedures. Acosta told us his main concern 

was ensuring that the hiring process moved forward expeditiously. 

Acosta’s modification added the requirement that DAAGs obtain the 

concurrence of the Principal DAAG before sending the initial list of 

applicants to the section chief for interviews. Applicants sent to the 

sections by the DAAGs were expected to be interviewed by the section 

chiefs (and other personnel in the sections) within 2 weeks of their 

names being sent to the sections. In addition, section chiefs were only 

permitted to review applications in the Human Resources Office, which 

represented a change from long-standing Division practice. Section 

chiefs could not obtain their own copies of attorneys’ applications. 

Acosta’s memorandum also required the Principal DAAG to review the 

recommendations from the section chiefs and DAAGs before seeking 

approval to hire from the AAG, thus ensuring that Bradshaw, to whom 

12 
Acosta had delegated hiring authority, was not bypassed. Finally, the 

Acosta memorandum emphasized that consistency in setting starting 

salary levels was important and that only the Human Resources Office 

was authorized to discuss salary levels with prospective employees. 

C. Memorandum on Personnel Practices: June 2007 

In the wake of substantial media attention regarding allegations of 

questionable hiring practices within the Civil Rights Division, AAG Wan 

Kim issued a memorandum dated June 29, 2007, in which he stated 

that he was 

fully committed to ensuring that all personnel decisions 

within the Civil Rights Division are consistent with principles 

of fairness as well as all applicable laws, rules and 

regulations . . . . Consistent with applicable law, 

Department policies and my own practice, there will be no 

discrimination based on color, race, religion, national origin, 

political affiliation, marital status, disability, age, sex, sexual 

orientation, status as a parent, membership or nonmembership in an employee organization, or personal 

favoritism. 

The memorandum, posted on the Division’s Intranet site, also referred to 

the personnel practices prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 2302, the law that 

prescribes merit system principles in government employment. Kim’s 

memorandum did not make any specific changes to the hiring 

procedures developed by previous AAGs. 

13 
CHAPTER THREE: 

ATTORNEY PERSONNEL DECISIONS: 

HIRING, TRANSFERS, CASE ASSIGNMENTS, AND 

OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIONS WITHIN 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

In this section, we describe the evidence as to whether political or 

ideological affiliations were considered in attorney hiring and other 

personnel actions in the Civil Rights Division. We did not find evidence 

that political or ideological affiliations affected personnel decisions in the 

sections of the Division that were overseen by Deputy Assistant 

Attorneys General other than Bradley Schlozman. The career section 

chiefs of the Educational Opportunities Section, the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section, and the Disability Rights Section, which were not 

overseen by Schlozman, said the hiring of experienced attorneys in their 

sections was not affected by political or ideological affiliations, and the 

evidence in our investigation supported their statements. Career section 

managers and attorneys in these sections had greater roles in the 

process for hiring experienced attorneys. In addition, these section 

chiefs did not encounter any political interference from the Civil Rights 

Division’s front office in other attorney personnel matters. 

In contrast, we found that Schlozman inappropriately considered 

political and ideological affiliations in hiring experienced attorneys in the 

sections he supervised and entry-level attorneys throughout the Division 

for the Attorney General’s Honors Program.6 We also found that 

Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in transferring 

and assigning cases to career attorneys in the sections he supervised. 

Numerous Division employees said that shortly after Schlozman became 

a DAAG in 2003, he became deeply involved in attorney personnel 

matters for the five sections he supervised – the Special Litigation 

Section, the Employment Litigation Section, the Voting Section, the 

Criminal Section, and the Appellate Section. Several section chiefs 

supervised by Schlozman told us that Schlozman controlled hiring for 

career attorney positions, monitored case assignments, and directed 

section chiefs to assign important cases to attorneys he identified. Other 

officials in the Division said that Schlozman’s responsibility for and 

influence over personnel matters expanded over time. For example, 

 6 The Attorney General’s Honors Program is the means by which the 

Department hires recent law school graduates and judicial law clerks who do not have 

prior experience practicing law. The litigating divisions of the Department and several 

other components participate in the Honors Program hiring process, which is overseen 

by the Department’s Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM).

14 
several Division employees told us that Schlozman was assigned a 

significant role in screening, interviewing, and selecting Honors Program 

attorneys in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 Schlozman became the Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, and in that capacity he ordered three 

Appellate Section attorneys transferred to other sections in the Division 

based on improper considerations. According to many people we 

interviewed, throughout his tenure in the Division Schlozman considered 

political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other 

personnel actions such as attorney transfers and cases assignments. 

The following sections discuss the evidence regarding the use of 

political considerations by Schlozman in the hiring, transfers, and case 

assignments of Civil Rights Division attorneys. 

I. Hiring 

We found that Schlozman inappropriately considered political and 

ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys. Based on the results of 

our interviews of Civil Rights Division section chiefs and many other 

attorneys in the Division, we learned that Schlozman favored applicants 

with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored 

applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered 

to be overly liberal. In addition, he prevented many career section chiefs 

from reviewing résumés of the complete applicant pool, and he only 

provided to them résumés of applicants he interviewed. Five of the six 

section chiefs whom Schlozman supervised while DAAG, from May 2003 to 

June 2005, told us that Schlozman further minimized their roles in the 

hiring process by providing little advance notice of applicant interviews, 

discouraging their asking questions during the interviews, and ignoring 

their assessments and recommendations regarding attorney applicants. 

Several Division attorneys told us that Schlozman expressed 

disdain for the career attorneys in the Division, believing them to be 

mostly liberal and Democrats. According to several of these attorneys, 

Schlozman expressed a desire to hire “real Americans” into the Division, 

a term that many people told us Schlozman used when referring to 

political conservatives. Several Division attorneys and officials said that 

Schlozman made statements to them about his hiring conservatives or 

Republicans into the Division. During his testimony before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee on June 5, 2007, Schlozman admitted that that he 

“probably ha[s] made statements like that.” We also found that prior to 

his testimony, Schlozman admitted to a section chief that he had made 

mistakes by “consider[ing] politics.” 

The following sections provide evidence supporting these findings. 

15 
A. Schlozman’s Role in the Hiring Process 

Former AAG Acosta and former Principal DAAG Bradshaw told us 

that Schlozman had a lead role in hiring for the Division from mid-2003 

to early 2006, particularly in the sections he supervised: Special 

Litigation, Employment Litigation, Voting, Criminal, and Appellate.7 

Others in the Division told us that Schlozman conducted the hiring 

process with little supervision. For example, the Chief of the Special 

Litigation Section, Shanetta Cutlar, said that Acosta once told her that 

Bradshaw and Schlozman were in charge of hiring. Bradshaw told us 

that while he had to approve all hiring decisions, he relied heavily on 

Schlozman to run the process. When Schlozman became Acting AAG in 

June 2005, he maintained his active role in the hiring of Division 

attorneys. 

The section chiefs supervised by Schlozman told us that he 

controlled hiring for their sections. Special Litigation Section Chief 

Cutlar, Employment Litigation Section Chief David Palmer, Criminal 

Section Chief Mark Kappelhoff, former Criminal Section Chief Albert 

Moskowitz, and former Voting Section Chief Joseph Rich said that they 

were not provided access to the résumés of all applicants who had 

applied for attorney positions in their sections; instead, the résumés were 

screened exclusively by Schlozman. 

Cutlar said that on several occasions she asked Schlozman for all 

of the applicant résumés but he refused to provide them to her. Cutlar 

said that she once contacted the Division’s Human Resources Office to 

request copies of the résumés for all the applicants to the section, but 

was told that she could not have them without the permission of the 

front office. Cutlar said she never received them. 

Employment Litigation Section Chief Palmer said that he 

complained to Schlozman that the hiring procedures for attorney 

positions in his section differed from the procedures followed in other 

sections where, for example, the section chiefs were able to review 

résumés of all applicants to the section. Schlozman responded by telling 

Palmer that he was “entirely comfortable with our hiring procedures and 

the process will remain as it is.” 

Cutlar said that the applicants whose résumés she reviewed after 

they had been culled from the applicant pool by Schlozman or others in 

 7 According to Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn, Schlozman did not formally 

supervise the Appellate Section until he became Acting AAG in June 2005. However, 

former Principal DAAG Bradshaw said that he delegated to Schlozman an active role in 

the hiring for and management of the Appellate Section. 

16 
the front office typically reflected membership in conservative 

organizations. She also said the most striking thing she noticed about 

the résumés was that the applicants generally lacked relevant 

experience. She said Schlozman minimized the importance of prior civil 

rights or human rights work experience. On that subject, Schlozman 

told Cutlar on one occasion, in the context of the hiring of volunteer 

interns in the Division, that relevant experience was not always a plus. 

In a voice mail to Cutlar in February 2006, Schlozman stated: 

[W]hen we start asking about, “what is your commitment to 

civil rights?” . . . . [H]ow do you prove that? Usually by 

membership in some crazy liberal organization or by some 

participation in some crazy cause. . . . Look, look at my 

résumé – I didn’t have any demonstrated commitment, but I 

care about the issues. So, I mean, I just want to make sure 

we don’t start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo 

members because they happen to be a member of some, you 

know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to 

overthrow the government. 

Former Criminal Section Chief Moskowitz also said the candidates 

for career positions chosen by Schlozman had conservative political or 

ideological affiliations and rarely had any civil rights background, rarely 

expressed any interest in civil rights enforcement, and had very little or 

no federal criminal experience.8 

Other witnesses told us and e-mails confirmed that Schlozman 

actively recruited applicants who were members of the Federalist Society. 

In 2004, Schlozman told Division officials and attorneys that he attended 

Federalist Society events, such as a student symposium and a law 

student picnic, to recruit applicants. In an e-mail to several Division 

front office personnel on February 18, 2004, Schlozman wrote about the 

symposium, “If we get a speaking role, it might be useful to spread the 

word and get more applications from these fine young americans.” 

Section Chiefs Cutlar, Palmer, Kappelhoff, Rich, and Moskowitz 

also stated that all interviews of attorney applicants for their sections 

were conducted by Schlozman. They explained that when they were 

included in the interviewing process, they received an invitation to attend 

from Schlozman, usually on short notice. Rich said he had very little 

participation in the interviews other than to describe the work of the 

 8 Moskowitz served as Criminal Section Chief from 1999 until 2005, when AAG 

Kim reassigned him to a newly created training position. Mark Kappelhoff, who had 

previously served as a Deputy Section Chief before leaving the Department, returned to 

replace Moskowitz as the Section Chief.

17 
section. Cutlar said that when she tried to ask questions at interviews 

Schlozman sometimes waved his hand dismissively at her and told her 

that she did not need to ask that question. In 2003, Cutlar complained 

to Schlozman that she was being cut out of the interview process 

entirely, and she requested that she be included in interviews, arguing in 

an e-mail that her lack of involvement in the final interview would 

adversely affect the work of the section she supervised. Schlozman 

responded: “I will think about it, but I make no promises. My position is 

that long-term hires are the prerogative of the leadership.” 

According to Cutlar, Schlozman made the decision whether an 

applicant should be hired, often without soliciting any input from her 

about her impressions of the applicant. Cutlar said, for example, that by 

the time she returned to her office after an interview she often had 

received an e-mail from Schlozman directing the Division Human 

Resources Office to extend an employment offer to the applicant. 

Cutlar said she vehemently objected to some of the candidates 

interviewed for the Special Litigation Section because she did not believe 

they were qualified, but said she was routinely overruled by Schlozman. 

For example, Cutlar said she objected to hiring a candidate who was the 

girlfriend of an attorney hired in the Division’s Educational Opportunities 

Section because the applicant was unqualified. The applicant, who was 

working as a contract paralegal at a law firm, was a member of both the 

Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. 

Cutlar said she also noted a discrepancy in dates on the applicant’s 

résumé – specifically that during the period the applicant claimed to have 

been self-employed practicing law, she was not admitted to any state bar. 

When Cutlar sought an explanation from the applicant during the 

interview, Schlozman told her to “let it go.” Cutlar argued with 

Schlozman after the interview that the candidate had not been truthful 

and should not be hired. By the time she returned to her office, however, 

Cutlar had received an e-mail from Schlozman informing her that he was 

hiring the applicant.9 

In another example, Cutlar said she objected to two candidates on 

the grounds that they were too inexperienced to work in her section. 

However, Schlozman said the two could serve as “junior attorneys” in the 

section, a position Cutlar said did not exist. One candidate was the 

niece of a former agency head in the Bush administration, while the 

other was a personal friend of a Counsel to Paul McNulty when he served 

as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Counsel 

 9 The applicant resigned her position at the Department before the end of her 

first year when faced with possible termination for poor performance.

18 
described the applicant as a “solid conservative” in his referral e-mail to 

Principal DAAG Wiggins.10 

Former Voting Section Chief Rich said there were occasions when 

he attended interviews, but he was never asked by Schlozman for his 

opinion of the applicant or for his recommendation of whether the 

applicant should be hired. Moskowitz said he had no meaningful role in 

the hiring decision process, and Kappelhoff said new attorneys 

sometimes just appeared on the section roster without explanation. He 

said they had been hired by the front office without him knowing about it 

and without him having any participation in the process. 

Employment Litigation Section Chief Palmer said that he objected 

to offering positions to several applicants Schlozman wanted to hire, but 

the applicants met “minimal” qualification standards and were hired. 

However, in an e-mail dated November 2, 2005, Palmer expressed his 

reservations to Schlozman about an applicant Schlozman planned to 

hire. The applicant had been fired from a previous job. Palmer wrote: “I 

am lukewarm at best about this, Brad. He mentioned nothing during 

our interview about being fired from a job. I certainly would have liked to 

ask him about this during our interview.” Schlozman responded, “I 

support his hiring. Please let [Human Resources] know. Thx.”11 

In contrast to what the other section chiefs told us, former Voting 

Section Chief John Tanner told us he was a full participant in the hiring 

process for attorney positions in the Voting Section after he became 

section chief.12 Tanner said that he, Schlozman, and Hans von 

Spakovsky (who was Counsel to the Civil Rights Division AAG) each 

reviewed résumés, made recommendations for applicants to be 

interviewed, and conducted interviews. He said when the Voting Section 

was hiring for a number of positions, he conducted pre-interviews to 

narrow the number of candidates interviewed by the front office. Tanner 

asserted that the hiring decisions in the Voting Section were mainly 

made on a consensus basis and that Schlozman solicited his views about 

 10 The Counsel’s e-mail to Wiggins stated that the candidate “is a solid 

conservative but would be willing to work in [Civil Rights]. I think the criminal section 

might be best. I’m not sure if any of the other sections would tolerate her.” 

11 Palmer said that there were some instances in which applicants were not 

hired after he objected, but he could not recall the names of any such applicants. 

12 Tanner, who had previously worked in the Voting Section from 1979 to 1995 

and returned to the Voting Section in 2002 as a Special Litigation Counsel, became 

Section Chief in June 2005, after Rich retired from the position. Tanner stepped down 

as the Section Chief in January 2008, and was detailed to the Division’s Office of 

Special Counsel, after comments he made during a speech about African American 

voters created a public controversy. 

19 
applicants and took his opinions into account. Tanner said there were 

candidates he did not like and that they were not hired. According to 

Tanner, attorney candidates were not screened for political affiliations. 

He said neither politics nor political affiliations were mentioned during 

interviews and there were no political litmus tests. Tanner also 

contrasted the hiring process with previous administrations’ practices, 

where he said there was a virtual “ban on conservatives” and applicants 

were subjected to the litmus test of whether they were a “civil rights 

person.” 

Palmer, like Tanner, told us that he did not agree that there was a 

concerted effort to hire conservatives for career attorney positions in the 

Division. Palmer said it was his impression that Schlozman wanted to 

“broaden the pool” of applicants from what it had been prior to the 

Republican administration. According to Palmer, previously applicants 

were drawn from five major law schools, including Harvard and Yale, and 

the applicants typically had similar internship experiences. Palmer said 

that the Division had not recruited from or considered applicants from 

second and third tier law schools and had not recruited people with 

backgrounds in insurance or employment defense work. He said that 

Schlozman sought to find qualified attorneys from a broader pool. 

Palmer added that Schlozman did not instruct him to look for attorneys 

with conservative or Republican affiliations. He asserted that Schlozman 

was more concerned about hiring people who would not leak information 

to the media or undermine the Division’s policies. Palmer said he was 

unaware of whether attorneys hired by Schlozman were generally more 

conservative. He noted, however, that many more members of the 

Federalist Society applied to the Division after the change in 

administration. 

B. Additional Evidence and E-mails 

Notwithstanding Tanner and Palmer’s statements, accounts from 

several other witnesses provide additional evidence that political and 

ideological affiliations were factors in Schlozman’s hiring decisions 

throughout his tenure in the Division. An Appellate Section attorney 

whom Schlozman had recommended be hired into the Honors Program in 

the fall of 2004 told us that Schlozman told him that he was hoping to 

free up some slots in the Appellate Section for “good Americans.” 

Several attorneys in the Division also told us that Schlozman was 

open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the attorney staff of the 

Division.13 Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn told us that in 

 

(Cont.) 

13 For example, in an e-mail on July 15, 2003, to a former colleague, Schlozman 

wrote, “I too get to work with mold spores, but here in Civil Rights, we call them Voting 

20 
conversations with her, Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate 

Section lawyers hired during prior administrations as “Democrats” and 

“liberals,” and said they were “disloyal,” could not be trusted, and were 

not “on the team.” Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of 

them out of the Division as he could to make room for the “real 

Americans” and “right-thinking Americans” he wanted to hire.

Accounts from numerous other Division employees and officials, 

including former AAG Wan Kim and Section Chiefs Cutlar and Flynn, as 

well as the context of Schlozman’s e-mails, indicate that his use of terms 

such as “real American,” “right-thinking American,” being “on the team,” 

and similar terms were Schlozman’s way of referring to politically 

conservative applicants and attorneys. For example, an e-mail dated 

July 17, 2006, from Schlozman to Monica Goodling, who at the time was 

Senior Counsel to the Attorney General and White House Liaison, sheds 

light on the meaning of Schlozman’s terms. In that e-mail, Schlozman 

recommended a friend who had interviewed with Goodling for a political 

position. Schlozman wrote, “I can assure you that [the applicant] is a 

good American. [The applicant] and Sheldon Bradshaw and I (and [one] 

other person) made up a four-member Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at my 

former law firm.” In another e-mail sent to Goodling on December 4, 

2006, in which Schlozman recommended a different friend for an 

Immigration Judge position, Schlozman wrote, “[D]on’t be dissuaded by 

his ACLU work on voting matters from years ago. This is a very different 

man, and particularly on immigration issues, he is a true member of the 

team.”14 

 

Section attorneys.” As part of the same e-mail exchange, on July 16, 2003, Schlozman 

wrote, “My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the 

section.” In addition, while interim U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri, 

Schlozman wrote an e-mail to a friend, dated June 15, 2006, contrasting his job as 

U.S. Attorney with his position in the Civil Rights Division. He wrote: 

It has been months since I felt the need to scream with a blood-curdling 

cry at some commie, partisan subordinate (i.e., most of the [Voting] 

section staff until recently). And I feel like the people I now work with are 

all complete professionals. What a weird change. Granted, these 

changes are nice in many respects, but bitchslapping a bunch of 

[Division] attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even 

enjoyable once in a while. I think now it’s all Good Cop for folks there. I 

much preferred the role of Bad Cop. . . . But perhaps the Division will 

name an award for me or something. How about the Brad Schlozman 

Award for Most Effectively Breaking the Will of Liberal Partisan 

Bureaucrats. I would be happy to come back for the awards ceremony. 

14 “ACLU” refers to the American Civil Liberties Union. 

21 
A May 9, 2003, e-mail provides additional evidence of the meaning 

of Schlozman’s phrases. Luis Reyes, then Counsel to the AAG for the 

Civil Division, sent an e-mail to Schlozman in connection with a legal 

matter, endorsing an attorney in the Department’s Office of Legal Policy 

as a “right thinking american to say the least.” In an e-mail response, 

Schlozman wrote that he “just spoke with [the attorney] to verify his 

political leanings and it is clear he is a member of the team.”15 

Former AAG Kim said he recalled an instance while he was still a 

DAAG when a concern about improper hiring considerations by 

Schlozman was brought to his attention. Kim said that in about March 

2004 he had received a telephone call “out of the blue” from Andrew 

Lelling, who at the time was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern 

District of Virginia. Lelling had previously worked in the Civil Rights 

Division front office as Counsel to AAG Boyd. Kim was not acquainted 

with Lelling, but knew of his prior association with the Division. Kim 

said the call was memorable. He said that Lelling told him of a telephone 

conversation Lelling had just had with Schlozman. According to Kim, 

Lelling said, “I want to call you because I just spoke with Brad 

[Schlozman] recently and something that he said bothered me.” Lelling 

told Kim that he had called Schlozman to recommend a colleague at the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office who was interested in a position in the Criminal 

Section of the Civil Rights Division. Lelling told Kim that Schlozman had 

asked Lelling, “Well, is this guy conservative?” or something to that 

effect. Lelling said he had replied, “I don’t know. I don’t think so. I’m 

not sure,” and Schlozman told him, “Then he probably won’t be hired.” 

Kim said he recalled that Lelling next said, “I don’t agree with that. 

I just wanted to call you, I don’t want to go around Schlozman, I don’t 

want him to think I’m going around his back, but I just don’t think that’s 

fair.” Kim told us that at the time he thought, “This is crazy.” Kim said 

he told Lelling he agreed with him. Kim also suggested to Lelling that he 

tell his colleague to provide his application information to Kim when he 

 15 In contrast to this evidence, as a follow-up to his June 5, 2007, testimony 

before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Schlozman supplied a written answer to a 

question posed by Senator Kennedy asking what Schlozman meant by the term “good 

American.” Schlozman wrote “I frequently use the term ‘Great American.’ I use the 

phrase casually as a term of endearment. Indeed, anyone who knows me well knows 

that I refer to Democratic and Republican friends/colleagues alike as ‘great 

Americans.’ ” Former Principal DAAG Bradshaw and former Voting Section Chief 

Tanner also told us that they did not consider Schlozman to be attaching political or 

ideological meaning to such terms. Bradshaw and Tanner maintained that the terms 

“good American” and “fine American” were ideologically neutral, meaning simply that 

the person was a hard worker or a “good guy.” Tanner said that the terms were used 

simply as terms of endearment. 

22 
applied for the position, and Kim said he would make sure he gets a “fair 

shake.”16 

Kim told us Lelling’s call bothered him because he was not sure 

whether Schlozman “was applying the right kind of criteria” to hiring 

decisions. Within a week of speaking to Lelling, Kim said he brought the 

subject up in a conversation with Schlozman. Kim told us that he made 

clear to Schlozman that it would be unlawful and impermissible to make 

hiring decisions based on political affiliations. Kim said he “basically 

parrot[ed] to Schlozman the requirements of the CSRA,” referring to the 

Civil Service Reform Act. Kim said that Schlozman reacted with what Kim 

described as “a double-take with his head.” Kim said he followed up by 

adding that the statute is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel, and 

Scott Bloch, the Special Counsel, whom he knew to be a friend of 

Schlozman. Kim said that Schlozman looked at Kim and said, “You 

know, I don’t do that.”17

Further evidence that Schlozman considered political factors in 

hiring is found in other e-mails. For example, in November 2003, when a 

Department attorney forwarded to Schlozman the résumé of a recent law 

school graduate who was clerking for a federal judge and was interested 

in a position at the Department, Schlozman forwarded the résumé to a 

Counsel in the front office of the Civil Rights Division, commenting that 

“this has lib written all over it. let’s discuss[.]”18 

On November 13, 2003, Principal DAAG Wiggins forwarded an 

e-mail to Schlozman containing a magistrate judge’s recommendation of 

his law clerk for a position in the Division. The magistrate judge 

described his clerk as “a very able lawyer” who would be “a good addition 

to your staff.” Wiggins noted to Schlozman, “We need to hire this guy[.]” 

In a one-word e-mail reply to Wiggins, Schlozman asked: “conservative?” 

 16 Kim said he spoke to Lelling again a few weeks later and learned that his 

colleague had decided not to apply for a position in the Civil Rights Division. When we 

interviewed that individual, he said he had no knowledge of Lelling’s concerns or the 

conversation with Kim. 

17 When we interviewed Lelling, now an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, he 

said he did not recall speaking with Schlozman. He said he did recall contacting Kim to 

discuss his colleague’s suitability for a position in the Division. Lelling said he knew of 

Schlozman’s reputation for being very conservative and called Kim instead because he 

did not believe that Schlozman would be fair in assessing his colleague’s credentials. 

18 The applicant’s résumé showed prior employment for three Democratic 

Members of Congress, as well as positions in the Department of Education and the Office 

of Justice Programs during the Clinton administration. The applicant was not hired. 

23 
In another e-mail to a Division front office Counsel dated 

January 12, 2004, Schlozman inquired about an attorney being referred 

as a candidate for a career civil service position by asking, “how does he 

view the world, if you know what I mean?” In the e-mail, Schlozman 

added, “(and for God’s sake, don’t forward this email!).” 

In a January 30, 2004, e-mail to Kim, Schlozman declined an 

invitation to join Kim for lunch, noting, “Unfortunately I have an 

interview at 1 with some lefty who we’ll never hire but I’m extending a 

courtesy interview as a favor.” In another e-mail, dated March 5, 2004, 

Schlozman wrote to a front office Counsel that a Criminal Section deputy 

“has recommended several other commies for permanent positions in 

[the section]. [Criminal Section Chief Moskowitz] probably would concur 

with his recommendations. But as long as I’m here, adherents of Mao’s 

little red book need not apply.” 

Schlozman wrote an e-mail to Kim, dated March 15, 2004, that 

stated: 

We need to start thinking about [Criminal Section] lateral 

hires. I fear that [Moskowitz] and his minions will be sorting 

through the résumés looking for [name of attorney] clones 

who are big libs and would enforce certain of our statutes 

only with great reluctance. In talking to Alex, he is of the 

view (as am I) that our new folks should be individuals with 

a background in, or genuine commitment to prosecuting 

trafficking cases. Also, any candidate must profess his/her 

willingness to zealously prosecute both death penalty and 

PBA cases. I strongly suspect that we have plenty of former 

prosecutors in the batch, so I would prefer not to see a 

bunch of public defenders that think like Al. Thoughts? 

Also on March 15, 2004, Schlozman wrote an e-mail expressing his 

uncertainty to a Division attorney about whether an applicant for the 

Division’s Special Litigation Section was conservative because she had 

interned at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).19 When contacted 

for this investigation, the applicant told us that Schlozman had called 

her and questioned her about her internship and asked whether she was 

a member of the ACLU. She assured him that she was not a member 

and that she had interned with the ACLU to learn about constitutional 

law. According to Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar, Schlozman 

considered not hiring the applicant when he thought she was a member 

 19 In the March 15, 2004, e-mail from Schlozman to a Division attorney, 

Schlozman also wrote, “if [the applicant] is so conservative, how is it that she was a 

member of the ACLU in Tennessee during law school?” 

24 
of the ACLU. Cutlar said Schlozman hired the applicant, even though 

Cutlar had objected for other reasons, once Schlozman was satisfied that 

the applicant was not an ACLU member. 

In an e-mail dated May 27, 2005, Employment Litigation Section 

Chief Palmer asked Schlozman whether he was aware that a new Honors 

Program attorney assigned to the section had worked for the Lawyer’s 

Committee for Civil Rights. Schlozman responded to Palmer that he 

“kn[e]w all about him. He will be okay. (He worked as intern in [W[hite] 

H[ouse] Counsel’s Office.) But he was forced on us anyway and got the 

nod over my objection. Still, I expect you to monitor him very, very 

carefully.” 

C. Schlozman’s Statements 

According to Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar, in 

approximately March 2007, Schlozman admitted to her that he had 

“considered politics” in hiring career attorneys. In March 2007, 

Schlozman had returned to Washington to work at the Executive Office 

for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) after serving as interim 

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri for about 1 year. At 

the time, there were media reports regarding allegations of political 

considerations affecting personnel decisions at the Department. During 

this period, Schlozman unexpectedly visited Cutlar in her office. Cutlar 

said Schlozman discussed with her the allegations of partisan hiring in 

the Division. According to Cutlar, Schlozman said, “You know, I was 

thinking I probably made some mistakes . . . . I probably considered 

politics when I shouldn’t have.” Cutlar stated that later in the same 

conversation Schlozman said, “Well, I’m just saying I got caught up in 

the group mentality. You know how it is.” Cutlar said that Schlozman 

concluded this conversation by again admitting, “Maybe I’ve made some 

mistakes. Maybe I considered politics when I shouldn’t have.” 

In a subsequent telephone conversation with Cutlar during the 

same time frame, however, Schlozman retreated from his admissions 

about his consideration of politics in hiring. Cutlar said that in this 

follow-up conversation Schlozman told her, “You know I didn’t do 

anything wrong.” Cutlar said Schlozman repeated several times that he 

wanted her to know and remember that he considered her to be “a close 

and personal friend.” 

When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 

June 5, 2007, Schlozman admitted that he had boasted about hiring 

25 
Republicans and conservatives in the Civil Rights Division.20 We also 

found that Schlozman made statements boasting to others about using 

political and ideological affiliations in hiring for career Civil Rights 

attorney positions. One example is an e-mail dated January 6, 2004, 

from Schlozman to an attorney hired by Schlozman in the Division. 

Shortly after being hired, the attorney sent an e-mail to Schlozman 

expressing his happiness in the Special Litigation Section, noting that his 

“office is even next to a Federalist Society member.” Schlozman replied 

by e-mail, “Just between you and me, we hired another member of ‘the 

team’ yesterday. And still another ideological comrade will be starting in 

one month. So we are making progress.” 

Former AAG Kim told us of Schlozman’s statements regarding 

Division attorneys who attended Federalist Society meetings. Kim said 

that when Schlozman returned from Federalist Society meetings or 

events, he commented that there were now Civil Rights Division 

attorneys at the meetings when there never had been before. 

Employment Litigation Section Chief Palmer told us that he heard 

Schlozman express pleasure about his bringing “RTAs,” meaning “rightthinking Americans,” and Republicans into the Division. Palmer added, 

“I don’t want to say that [Schlozman] had a preference, but [he] liked 

hiring conservatives.” Andrew Lelling, former front office Counsel to AAG 

Boyd, told us that Schlozman “was always very unapologetically clear 

about the kind of people he wanted hired into the Department . . . . [H]e 

want[ed] people in the Department who [were] conservative on the legal 

issues, maybe conservative period.” 

An applicant Schlozman recruited for a career attorney position in 

the Division said Schlozman told him that there were too many liberal, 

Democratic trial attorneys in the Voting Section and that he was trying to 

“remedy” the situation by identifying conservative applicants and 

selecting them outside the official application process. 

D. Hiring in Civil Rights Division Sections Not Supervised 

by Schlozman 

By contrast, according to the chiefs of Division sections not 

supervised by Schlozman – Educational Opportunities, Housing and Civil 

Enforcement, and Disability Rights – hiring of experienced attorneys in 

their sections was not affected by consideration of political or ideological 

 20 Senator Schumer: Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain 

number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice 

Department? 

Mr. Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that.

26 
affiliations.21 These section chiefs told us that their supervising Deputy 

Assistant Attorneys General allowed them and other career section 

managers and attorneys to participate meaningfully in the process for 

hiring experienced attorneys for their sections.22 In these sections, the 

career managers and attorneys reviewed résumés of all applicants, 

recommended applicants for interviews, conducted interviews 

independent of front office personnel, and made hiring recommendations 

to the front office. The section chiefs said that experienced attorneys 

hired for these sections were recommended by the sections and approved 

by the front office, and applicants were not hired over the objection of 

section managers. We did not find evidence that political or ideological 

affiliations were factors in the hiring for these sections. 

For example, Educational Opportunities Section Chief Jeremiah 

Glassman told us that he had access to the résumés of all applicants and 

he, with assistance from other attorneys in the section, picked the 

candidates to interview. Glassman said that while on occasion the front 

office identified a candidate to be interviewed, all of the experienced 

attorneys hired were the choice of the section staff. 

According to Housing Section Chief Steven Rosenbaum, the front 

office reviewed résumés of applicants for his section and sent him a list 

of applicants that would be interviewed. However, Rosenbaum said he 

and other section attorneys added applicants to that list based upon a 

review of all the résumés. He said that the front office conducted the 

first round of interviews of all applicants, while the second round was 

conducted jointly by Rosenbaum and front office staff, sometimes 

including Schlozman. Subsequent interviews were conducted by section 

attorneys. According to Rosenbaum, at least two and possibly all three 

of the experienced attorneys hired for the section were favorably 

recommended by the section after they interviewed with section 

attorneys. 

 21 Schlozman did not have a formal role in supervising the Appellate Section 

until he became the Acting AAG in June 2005. After that, he took a very active role in 

managing the Appellate Section. Even after becoming Acting AAG, however, Schlozman 

did not become involved to any significant extent in the management of the Educational 

Opportunities, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Disability Rights Sections. 

22 The sections that were not supervised by Schlozman had autonomy in hiring 

experienced attorneys. However, because Schlozman oversaw the Honors Program 

hiring for all of the Civil Rights Division during 2003 and 2004, the section chiefs said 

Schlozman selected the entry-level attorneys hired for career positions through that 

program, regardless of the section to which they were assigned. We discuss the Civil 

Rights Division’s Honors Program hiring in the next section of this report. 

27 
Disability Rights Section Chief John Wodatch said that the section 

was largely successful in having its hiring choices approved by the front 

office. He told us he had recommended to the front office all five of the 

experienced attorneys hired during the period we reviewed, two of whom 

had previously worked in the section and two others who were referred 

by a section deputy. 

E. Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program Hiring 

The Attorney General’s Honors Program is the means by which the 

Department hires recent law school graduates and judicial law clerks 

who do not have prior experience practicing law. The litigating divisions 

of the Department and several other components participate in the 

Honors Program hiring process, which is overseen by the Department’s 

Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM) and occurs in 

the fall of each year. The Summer Law Intern Program (SLIP) is the 

Department’s hiring program for paid summer interns and is also 

overseen by OARM. 

The OIG and OPR conducted a joint investigation into whether 

political and ideological affiliations of applicants were improperly 

considered in making selections for the Honors Program and SLIP from 

2002 to 2006.23 In the course of that investigation, several Civil Rights 

Division officials and attorneys told us that Schlozman had a significant 

role in screening, interviewing, and selecting Honors Program and SLIP 

attorneys in 2003 and 2004. For example, former AAG Acosta said that 

Schlozman was “the point person on the Honors Program” throughout 

Acosta’s tenure as AAG. Two Division front office Counsel were also 

significantly involved in Honors Program and SLIP hiring during that 

time period. 

Based on our interviews of Civil Rights Division participants in the 

Honors Program and SLIP hiring process and the e-mails we reviewed, we 

concluded that Schlozman improperly considered political and ideological 

affiliations in selecting attorneys for the two programs. In this section, 

we describe the evidence that led to this conclusion. 

 23 Our separate report on the Honors Program and SLIP hiring contains a 

complete description of the programs, the hiring processes, and the manner in which 

the various components of the Department participated in the programs. That report 

also contains our findings as to whether Department officials from components and 

offices other than the Civil Rights Division improperly considered political and 

ideological affiliations of applicants in making selections for the Honors Program and 

SLIP from 2002 to 2006. See An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the 

Department of Justice Honors Program and the Summer Law Intern Program (June 2008), 

www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf. 

28 
Our investigation of the Honors Program and SLIP hiring process 

during the periods before and after Schlozman’s tenure in the Division 

uncovered no evidence that political and ideological affiliations were 

considered. In 2001, according to an administrator who attended all of 

the meetings of the committee that handled Honors Program and SLIP 

hiring for the Division, the committee was composed entirely of career 

staff. This administrator told us that discussion of the applicants by 

committee members focused on their academic qualifications and prior 

civil rights experience. She said that political or ideological affiliations 

were never discussed in evaluating applicants. 

In 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft changed the Honors Program 

and SLIP application process for the entire Department to require greater 

involvement by the AAGs and their front office staffs. Robert Driscoll, 

AAG Ralph Boyd’s Chief of Staff and a DAAG, was the person in charge of 

Honors Program hiring in the Civil Rights Division during 2002. He 

reviewed the applications and determined which candidates the Division 

would interview. Driscoll said that he evaluated the candidates on the 

basis of their academic qualifications and did not take into account 

political or ideological affiliations. Driscoll said that during the interview 

phase of the selection process, he asked questions designed to find 

candidates who would strictly interpret, apply, and enforce the civil 

rights laws. Front office Counsel Andrew Lelling also told us he 

conducted interviews of Honors Program applicants in 2002 and that 

politics was not a consideration in evaluating candidates. Lelling said he 

was looking for applicants who were smart, had good grades, had 

provided good writing samples, and wanted to work in the Division. 

By contrast, we found that in 2003 and 2004, political and 

ideological affiliations were considered by the Division in the Honors 

Program and SLIP hiring process and for screening applications during 

the 2005 hiring cycle before Wan Kim became the AAG. Two front office 

Counsels, Jason Torchinsky and Matt M. Dummermuth, and Schlozman 

were primarily responsible for reviewing applications to determine who to 

interview in 2003 and 2004.24 Most section chiefs told us that 

Schlozman excluded them from Honors Program and SLIP interviewing. 

Only Voting Section Chief John Tanner, Employment Litigation Section 

Chief David Palmer, and Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar 

said they participated in the Honors Program process. 

 24 Dummermuth was sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 

of Iowa in January 2007. He was nominated for the position by the President in 

December 2007. 

29 
Dummermuth, one of the front office Counsels who participated in 

the screening and interviewing of Honors Program and SLIP applicants 

for the Division, said that the hiring committee was “looking for 

candidates who would focus on enforcing the law as it stood and not 

necessarily pursuing the most creative interpretations of the law as 

possible.” He said he thought membership in certain organizations, such 

as the American Constitution Society and Americans United for 

Separation of Church and State, “would have been associated with more 

of an activist approach to law enforcement,” and he would have taken 

membership in those organizations as a negative factor. Dummermuth 

said that membership in the Federalist Society would have been a 

“positive factor” because he knew from personal experience that the 

group stood for taking a more “judicious” approach rather than an 

activist approach to the law. However, he said he did not have any 

knowledge about how Schlozman viewed membership in these 

organizations when evaluating candidates.25

However, contemporaneous e-mails indicate that Schlozman 

considered political or ideological affiliations in the evaluation of these 

candidates. For example, in an e-mail to Schlozman on December 19, 

2003, Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar reported that she had 

received unfavorable information from a judge she contacted in checking 

references for an Honors Program applicant to the Division. Schlozman 

responded to Cutlar on the same date: 

Okay, but just remember, Republican judges are generally 

far more demanding of quality, accuracy, and faithful 

adherence to statute and constitutional text than liberals, for 

whom activism and advocacy are the hallmarks of 

acceptability.26

Dummermuth told us that in 2004 he gave a list of suggested 

interviewees to Principal DAAG Bradshaw. He said Bradshaw later told 

him that Schlozman had proposed cutting some applicants from the list 

because Schlozman considered them to have “too much of an activist 

résumé.” Dummermuth said that based on discussions and 

disagreements within the Division’s front office, he interpreted 

Schlozman’s comment to mean that the applicants were affiliated with 

 25 Torchinsky left the Department in October 2005. He did not respond to our 

written request for an interview about the screening criteria he used and his 

involvement in the Honors Program and SLIP hiring process. 

26 The Honors Program applicant had clerked for two judges, both appointed by 

President George W. Bush. 

30 
liberal causes. He said, however, that he did not discuss Schlozman’s 

comment with either Bradshaw or Schlozman. 

In another e-mail, dated May 27, 2005, Employment Litigation 

Section Chief Palmer asked Schlozman if he knew that a recently hired 

Honors Program attorney assigned to Palmer’s section had worked for the 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. Schlozman replied: 

I know all about him. He will be okay. (He worked as intern 

in [the Bush administration’s] W[hite] H[ouse] Counsel’s 

Office.) But he was forced on us anyway and got the nod 

over my objection. Still, I expect you to monitor him very, 

very carefully. 

In an e-mail dated September 9, 2003, Schlozman directed 

Torchinsky to contact a member of the Federalist Society “to get direct 

referrals from [the member] and other helpful friends so that we know 

who to look for.” In an e-mail dated February 18, 2004, from Schlozman 

to various front office attorneys, Schlozman inquired whether anyone 

was planning to attend an upcoming Federalist Society student meeting 

at Vanderbilt University. Schlozman wrote, “If we get a speaking role, it 

might be useful to spread the word and get more applications from these 

fine young americans.” Schlozman also sent an e-mail directly to 

Federalist Society officials, dated June 30, 2004, requesting an invitation 

to a summer event. In that e-mail, Schlozman stated that he would like 

to “use the event as a way to encourage some Federalist Society student 

members to apply to the Department of Justice as part of the Attorney 

General’s Honors Program.” We did not find evidence of any similar 

outreach efforts to any other organization in our review of Schlozman’s 

e-mails. 

The 2005 Honors Program and SLIP hiring process began in the 

fall while Schlozman was the Division’s Acting AAG. The screening of 

applications to determine who to interview was conducted primarily by 

Torchinsky. Kim became the AAG before the interviewing of Honors 

Program and SLIP candidates began. A career attorney detailed to the 

Division front office to assist with, among other things, Honors Program 

and SLIP hiring told us that Kim told her “he wanted the best for his 

Honors class . . . he wanted good grades, he wanted participation” in civil 

rights, but “other considerations were not to be used.” This attorney said 

that by the time Kim made these comments, allegations had surfaced in 

the media about improper considerations in Civil Rights Division hiring. 

Kim said he told his staff at the beginning of the hiring process for the 

Honors Program and SLIP that he wanted “really smart people. 

Academic qualifications were number one[;] clerkships were preferable.” 

31 
In sum, the evidence showed that Schlozman improperly 

considered political and ideological affiliations in screening and selecting 

attorneys for the Honors Program and SLIP. 

F. Statistical Overview of Hiring of Career Attorneys 

In this section we present a statistical overview of the political and 

ideological affiliations of the attorneys hired in the Civil Rights Division 

from 2003 to 2006, the period of Schlozman’s involvement in the hiring 

process. This overview covers both the hiring of experienced attorneys 

and the Attorney General’s Honors Program attorneys. Our analysis is 

based on data gathered from résumés, application materials, e-mails, 

and interviews of Division employees.27 We believe it further 

corroborates our conclusion that Schlozman improperly considered 

political and ideological affiliations in hiring attorneys in the Civil Rights 

Division. 

As shown in Table 2, a total of 112 career attorneys were hired in 

the Division’s 8 main sections from 2003 to 2006. The new hires 

accounted for approximately 35 percent of all attorneys in the Division. 

For much of that period, Schlozman supervised several of the largest 

sections of the Division, and he also oversaw hiring for the entire 

Division of entry-level career attorneys through the Honors Program. 

Consequently, Schlozman participated in the hiring of 99 of the 112 

attorneys. Only 13 attorneys were hired in the Division without 

Schlozman’s involvement during his tenure in the Division. Although the 

number of career attorneys Schlozman was involved in hiring is much 

greater than the number of attorneys he did not participate in hiring, 

comparison of the statistics is nonetheless noteworthy. 

 27 In compiling this data, we reviewed the applicants’ résumés and application 

credentials. We examined whether a hired attorney’s résumé or application listed work 

experience with a Republican or Democratic politician or membership in an 

organization specifically affiliated with a political party, such as the Republican 

National Lawyers Association. We also considered whether an attorney’s application 

materials cited membership in or employment by any organization generally considered 

to be conservative or liberal. The appendix lists the groups we included in each 

category. In several instances we also considered other information provided by the 

applicants or their references during the hiring process. For example, we counted as 

Republican or conservative applicants whose references stated that they were a 

“dependable conservative,” or a “solid conservative,” or had “always shown himself to be 

an extremely solid conservative and supporter of the President.” For 40 successful 

applicants (approximately 36 percent of the career attorneys hired in the Division from 

2003 to 2006), we did not find information to place them in any category, and they are 

included in Table 2 as Unknown.

32 
Table 2: Political and Ideological Affiliations of Civil Rights Division 

Attorneys Hired from 2003 to 2006 

Schlozman Hires Non-Schlozman Hires 

Republican or conservative 63 (64%) 4 (31%) 

Democrat or liberal 2 (2%) 3 (23%) 

Unknown 34 (34%) 6 (46%) 

Total 99 (100%) 13 (100%) 

Source: OIG/OPR review of relevant materials. 

As shown in Table 2, virtually all of the attorneys (97 percent) 

hired by Schlozman whose political and ideological affiliations were 

evident in the hiring process were Republican or conservative (63 of 65). 

Schlozman hired only 2 attorneys who had Democratic or liberal 

affiliations.28 By contrast, when Schlozman was not involved in the 

hiring process, the results were more balanced: 4 Republican or 

conservative attorneys and 3 Democratic or liberal attorneys were hired. 

Attorneys hired by Schlozman were more than twice as likely to be 

Republican or conservative than those attorneys Schlozman was not 

involved in hiring (64 percent compared to 31 percent). Moreover, while 

only 2 percent of the attorneys hired by Schlozman had Democratic or 

liberal affiliations, 23 percent of the attorneys hired without Schlozman’s 

involvement listed such affiliations on their résumés. 

G. Analysis 

In sum, we concluded, based on the results of our investigation, 

that Schlozman improperly considered political and ideological 

affiliations in the recruitment and hiring of career attorneys in the Civil 

Rights Division, and in doing so, he violated Department policy and 

federal civil service laws, and committed misconduct. 

We found evidence that Schlozman told others in the Department 

about his success in hiring conservatives. In addition, in his testimony 

before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Schlozman admitted making 

such boasts. Numerous e-mails from Schlozman described above also 

 28 Although Schlozman was involved in the hiring process for both of the 

Democratic or liberal attorneys counted in Table 2 as “Schlozman Hires,” we found that 

those hiring decisions were made by others. In one case, AAG Kim recommended the 

attorney be hired for a supervisory position. In the other case, Schlozman stated in an 

e-mail to the chief of the section to which the attorney was assigned: “He needs to be 

put under a very watchful eye . . . , all of [his work] should be no-brainer crap.” 

33 
demonstrate that he sought conservative candidates and rejected liberal 

ones. Further, Schlozman admitted to Special Litigation Section Chief 

Cutlar in March 2007, after allegations of partisan hiring surfaced in the 

media: “I probably made some mistakes. . . . I probably considered 

politics when I shouldn’t have.” Moreover, a statistical overview of the 

political and ideological affiliations of attorneys hired in the Division 

during his tenure showed that Schlozman hired far more Republican or 

conservative attorneys than Democrats or liberals. At the same time, 

political and ideological affiliations did not appear to have been a factor 

when attorneys were hired without Schlozman’s involvement. 

Indeed, we found no evidence that the consideration of political or 

ideological affiliations affected hiring of experienced attorneys in the 

sections of the Division that were not overseen by Schlozman. In those 

sections – Educational Opportunities, Housing and Civil Enforcement, 

and Disability Rights – section chiefs and line attorneys reviewed 

résumés of all applicants, made recommendations of applicants to be 

interviewed, conducted interviews, and made hiring recommendations to 

the front office. Experienced attorneys hired for these sections were, for 

the most part, recommended by the sections and approved by the front 

office, and attorneys were not hired over the objection of section 

managers. 

In contrast, Schlozman controlled the hiring process and precluded 

meaningful input from the career section chiefs in the sections he 

supervised and for the Honors Program. Schlozman and the front office 

screened applicants’ résumés for those positions, and Schlozman chose 

the applicants to be interviewed. Moreover, Schlozman made most 

attorney hiring decisions without consulting with and sometimes over the 

objections of the section chiefs. 

The evidence showed that in his hiring decisions, Schlozman 

considered whether candidates were “real Americans,” “right thinking,” 

“solid,” “on the team,” and other similar terms, which we concluded 

referred to his consideration of political and ideological affiliations. The 

language of the e-mails, and the common understanding of virtually all of 

the people we interviewed who heard Schlozman use such terms, 

indicated that the terms had a political and ideological meaning. 

However, Bradshaw and Tanner maintained that the terms “good 

American” and “fine American” were ideologically neutral, meaning 

simply that the person was a hard worker or a “good guy,” and Tanner 

said that the words were used simply as terms of endearment. 

Schlozman’s September 6, 2007, written response to congressional 

questions adopted a similar approach. However, we did not find credible 

the interpretations offered by Bradshaw and Tanner in our interviews of 

them or by Schlozman in his response to the Senate. As discussed 

34 
above, the plain language of Schlozman’s e-mails and the common 

understanding held by most Division attorneys we interviewed about 

Schlozman’s use of such terms contradicted Schlozman’s claim. 

The evidence also indicated that Schlozman knew his 

consideration of political and ideological affiliations in hiring decisions 

was improper. According to then-DAAG Kim, he warned Schlozman in 

approximately March 2004 that considering politics in hiring for career 

attorney positions violated the Civil Service Reform Act. While Schlozman 

told Kim he was not doing so, the evidence, both before and after that 

conversation, showed that he was doing just that. 

II. Transfers, Case Assignments, and Other Personnel Actions 

Based on the results of our investigation, we concluded that 

Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in transferring 

three career attorneys out of the Appellate Section between June 2005 

and December 2005. 

We also found that Schlozman considered political and ideological 

affiliations in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys, such as 

case assignments and awards. Several section chiefs told us that 

Schlozman directed them not to assign important cases to attorneys he 

identified as liberal, and one section chief said he instructed her to 

nominate the conservative attorneys he had hired for awards. 

In this section, we first discuss the evidence supporting our 

conclusion that Schlozman considered political and ideological 

affiliations in transferring three career attorneys out of the Appellate 

Section. We then describe the evidence supporting our conclusion that 

Schlozman considered political or ideological affiliations in making case 

assignments and awards to career attorneys. 

A. Forced Transfers of Appellate Section Attorneys 

Appellate Section Chief Flynn told us that as early as 2004, when 

Schlozman was a DAAG with no supervisory responsibility for the 

Appellate Section, he often came to Flynn’s office to talk about the 

attorneys in the section. According to Flynn, Schlozman was very critical 

of the Appellate staff and commented to Flynn that many of the career 

attorneys in the Appellate Section were “disloyal,” “against us,” “not on 

the team,” and “treacherous.” Flynn said Schlozman stated on several 

occasions that when he “came into power,” he wanted to move those 

people out of the section to make way for “real Americans.” 

35 
According to Flynn’s handwritten notes of conversations she had 

with Schlozman in early 2005, which she wrote around the time of the 

conversations, Schlozman named three attorneys – who we call Attorneys 

A, B, and C – that he wanted to transfer out of the section.29 Flynn 

wrote that Schlozman said “when he was in charge, he would at leas

[Attorney A]” and “when he took over, people would ‘be out one way or 

another.’ ” Flynn said Schlozman told her that Attorney A had come to 

the section after working in the Civil Rights Division front office of the 

Clinton administration and was “not on the team.” 

t get 

 

In later notes, Flynn wrote that Schlozman “viewed [Attorney A] as 

a political opponent. Said she ha[s] had [a] ‘free ride’ here.” In other 

notes, Flynn wrote that Schlozman “[o]ften brought up Attorney A – and 

politics. Said when he obtained power, he would get her out.” Flynn’s 

notes of another conversation state that Schlozman again identified 

Attorneys A and C, and three others, as “disloyal,” and that Schlozman 

“also apparently has problems with [two other named attorneys, Attorney 

B], etc.” Flynn also noted that Schlozman expressed the view that most 

Appellate Section lawyers were Democrats. 

Another Appellate Section attorney, hired in February 2003, told 

us that in about January 2004, Schlozman asked him what it was like to 

work in the Appellate Section with “people who supported [Howard] Dean 

and think that he’s not liberal enough.” This attorney also described a 

voice mail message he received from Schlozman in June 2004. In the 

message, Schlozman asked him to informally mentor two young lawyers 

who had recently been hired in the Appellate Section. According to the 

attorney, in the message Schlozman told him to tell the new attorneys 

“who to avoid, like [an Appellate Section deputy chief] and [Attorney C].” 

This attorney also recalled Schlozman once asking him if he was aware 

that Attorney A had worked in the Civil Rights Division front office during 

the Clinton administration. 

1. Transfers of Attorneys A, B, and C 

a. Attorney A 

Attorney A was the first of three Appellate Section lawyers who was 

forced to transfer. Appellate Section Chief Flynn told us that at a 

meeting on June 17, 2005, two days after Schlozman became the Acting 

AAG, Schlozman told Flynn that the Appellate Section was losing three 

29 Flynn made handwritten notes about her discussions with Schlozman and 

eventually used them to draft a misconduct referral of Schlozman while he was Acting 

AAG. However, Flynn said she never filed the referral for fear of retaliation. 

36 
slots and that three attorneys would have to be transferred out of the 

section. At the meeting, Flynn said Schlozman identified Attorney A as 

the first attorney to be transferred. Flynn said Schlozman had previously 

described Attorney A as a “political opponent” because she had worked in 

the Civil Rights Division front office of the Clinton administration. 

According to Flynn, at the meeting he said that Attorney A was 

incompetent. Flynn said she disagreed with this assessment and told 

Schlozman that section management considered Attorney A to be a good 

appellate attorney.30 According to Flynn, Schlozman raised his voice and 

said that Attorney A had gotten a “free ride” and that it was a “good run 

but it was over.” 

Flynn’s notes of the meeting, made shortly afterwards, reflect that 

Schlozman rejected her observations and suggestions for avoiding 

attorney transfers. Her notes also reflect that Schlozman stated that this 

was an opportunity to replace some poor attorneys and attorneys who 

were opposed to his “agenda” and to bring in some “real Americans.” 

According to Flynn’s notes, Schlozman said that if more people left, he 

would be able to replace them with people he wanted. Flynn also said 

that Schlozman told her that if Flynn wanted to remain the section chief, 

she would do things his way. 

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar told us that Schlozman also 

talked to her about Attorney A’s transfer. According to Cutlar, 

Schlozman said that Attorney A was “a Democrat in hiding and is not 

going to hide in my Appellate Section.” Cutlar also told us that 

Schlozman said that Attorney A “wrote in Ebonics,” “was an idiot,” and 

“was an affirmative action thing.” 

b. Attorney B 

Attorney B was also transferred from the Appellate Section. 

According to her, beginning in about November 2004 – about a year 

before her transfer out of the Appellate Section – she was assigned Office 

of Immigration Litigation (OIL) cases in which the government was 

 30 Attorney A graduated magna cum laude from a top law school. She was 

initially hired by the Department to work in the Office of Legal Counsel as an attorney 

advisor. She left the Department to accept a 1-year clerkship on the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and returned to a career position in the 

Civil Rights Division front office. She began work in the Appellate Section in August 

2001. Attorney A had received positive annual performance appraisals for the period 

2001 through 2004 while in the Appellate Section, including a notation that she had 

“strong analytical and writing skills” and a commendation for “an excellent job in . . . 

one of the most important Establishment Clause cases decided by the Supreme Court 

in recent years . . . .” 

37 
defending on appeal the deportation of an alien.31 Over the following 

8 months, Attorney B handled eight appeals of OIL matters. During this 

same period, all of the civil rights cases she had been handling were 

transferred to other attorneys in the section.32 

Attorney B told us that in June 2005 she asked Section Chief 

Flynn why she was no longer being assigned civil rights cases. 

Attorney B said she told Flynn she was concerned because of 

Attorney A’s recent transfer from the Appellate Section. According to 

Attorney B, Flynn told her that Schlozman had ordered Flynn to reassign 

all of Attorney B’s civil rights cases to other attorneys and to assign her 

only OIL cases. Flynn told us that Schlozman had criticized Attorney B 

as not being “one of us” and that Schlozman had directed her to reassign 

Attorney B’s civil rights cases to other attorneys and to assign her only 

OIL cases. 

Attorney B said that upon learning this information she applied for 

and subsequently was offered a position as a detailee on the staff of 

Senator Charles Schumer. Attorney B received approval for the detail 

from the Civil Rights Division front office. 

While Attorney B was on the detail, an October 13, 2005, e-mail to 

Schlozman from a Division front office Counsel asked if Schlozman had 

seen a question posed to the Division by Senator Kennedy. According to 

the Counsel, the question was about internal deliberations within the 

Appellate Section.33 The Counsel commented in her e-mail, “That too is 

probably straight from [Attorney B].” Schlozman forwarded the e-mail to 

Wan Kim, who had been nominated but not yet confirmed as AAG, 

commenting: “Once again, these [Civil Rights Division] detailees to the 

Hill act unprofessionally. This is the woman who we will be moving from 

[Appellate] to [Special Litigation]. The change on the books will be 

 31 In about November 2004, the Department announced a plan to reduce the 

large backlog of OIL appeals by distributing these cases to attorneys in all Department 

components and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country. 

32 Attorney B graduated magna cum laude from law school. She clerked for a 

year on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was hired into the 

Department’s Honors Program and assigned to the Appellate Section. All of 

Attorney B’s annual performance appraisals for the period 2001 through 2004 were 

positive, including notations that she was a “very good appellate attorney,” “energetic 

and hard working,” and “an excellent writer.” 

33 We were unable to locate a document containing the question Senator 

Kennedy posed to the Division. 

38 
effective next week and it will be implemented if she ever comes back. 

Unbelievable!!”34

About 1 month later, on November 15, 2005, Attorney B said she 

received a telephone call from the Division’s Human Resources Office. 

Attorney B said she was told that she should report her time and 

attendance to the Special Litigation Section because she had been 

transferred to that section from Appellate a month earlier. According to 

Attorney B, the Human Resources Officer said the transfer decision had 

been made by the front office. Prior to this call, Attorney B said no one 

in the Division had discussed with her the possibility of a transfer out of 

the Appellate Section. Appellate Section Chief Flynn told us she was not 

consulted about Attorney B’s transfer and learned about the transfer 

after Attorney B did. 

After receiving this call, Attorney B sent an e-mail to Kim, who had 

been confirmed as AAG, asking for a meeting to discuss her transfer. 

After exchanging several e-mail messages, Kim assured Attorney B that 

he would seek to accommodate her preference, consistent with the needs 

of the Division, when she returned from her detail. Kim copied 

Schlozman on the final e-mail message he sent to Attorney B. 

Schlozman replied to Kim that Kim’s position was fair, but “the 

belligerence [Attorney B] displayed in her email was consistent with her 

uncompromising positions in [the Appellate Section] when she was there. 

Endless headaches were created by her refusal to follow directives from 

leadership.” In a subsequent e-mail to Kim, Schlozman added: 

I would note one other thing for the record. [Attorney B]’s 

writing skills are perfectly acceptable. If she is assigned to 

cases where she will not be able to use (as she often does) 

her political ideology to thwart positions advocated by the 

Division’s leadership, she is fine in [Appellate]. She was 

moved simply [because] I did not think it was wise to 

continue encumbering that spot during the entire length of 

her detail. 

c. Attorney C 

Another attorney in the Appellate Section, Attorney C, went on 

maternity leave in June 2005 and was scheduled to be on leave for 

6 months. Attorney C was forced to transfer out of Appellate upon 

returning from maternity leave in December 2005. 

 34 Kim said he had no reason to believe at that time that the transfer was 

politically motivated. The Counsel said that Schlozman told her of Attorney B’s 

transfer, but did not provide any explanation for it. 

39 
In late November 2005, while Attorney C was on maternity leave, 

Schlozman sent an e-mail to AAG Kim criticizing Attorney C’s writing 

skills, stating, “Her skills are negligible and, in my judgment, she is 

simply incapable of doing the work of the [Appellate] Section. 

Accordingly, I would continue to strongly urge her reassignment 

following her return.” 

Appellate Section Chief Flynn said that Schlozman told her at a 

meeting on December 12, 2005, that he wanted Attorney C to be 

transferred out of the section, but that he did not want it to be an 

involuntary transfer. Flynn said that Schlozman told her that when 

Attorney C returned from maternity leave, Flynn should put her on a 

performance improvement plan with dismissal as a possible outcome. 

According to Flynn’s handwritten notes, Schlozman also instructed her 

not to tell Attorney C of his or the front office’s involvement in her 

planned reassignment. Flynn said she told Schlozman it was not 

possible to put Attorney C on a performance improvement plan because 

she had always received satisfactory performance appraisals in the past 

and the section had not issued a performance appraisal for her in the 

past year.35 According to Flynn, Schlozman then told her to inform 

Attorney C that she could avoid any problems by agreeing to transfer to 

another section. 

An Appellate Section attorney and an Appellate deputy chief said 

they learned of Schlozman’s instructions to Flynn about moving 

Attorney C out of the section and informed Attorney C. Attorney C told 

us that she knew that Attorney A had been transferred and that 

Attorney B had also been transferred a few months earlier while on a 

detail. Moreover, Attorney C said she had heard from other attorneys in 

the section that Schlozman planned to move three attorneys out of 

Appellate. Attorney C said she called Flynn in December 2005 and told 

her that she was feeling coerced into transferring out of the Appellate 

Section and asked what Schlozman might do to her if she stayed. 

According to Attorney C, Flynn told her that she could not say or she 

would be fired. For these reasons, Attorney C said she decided to 

transfer to the Civil Rights Division’s Complaint Adjudication Office. 

 35 Attorney C graduated from a top law school. She clerked for two federal 

judges and worked at a national law firm for 4 years before joining the Appellate 

Section. Attorney C’s annual performance appraisals were consistently positive. In 

2001, she received a special commendation award for her work on a civil rights case. 

Attorney C’s 2004 performance appraisal stated that she “can be counted on to perform 

a wide range of assignments with relatively little supervision. Her writing is good, and 

her legal and factual research abilities are impressive.”

40 
2. Replacement Attorneys 

Flynn said that Schlozman had told her the reason for the three 

transfers was to reduce the size of the Appellate Section. However, 

Schlozman hired two attorneys for the Appellate Section after he began 

transferring the three attorneys from the section. 

The first replacement attorney was hired in September 2005, after 

Attorney A’s transfer but before the transfers of Attorneys B and C. An 

Appellate Section attorney who was hired into the Honors Program and 

joined the Appellate Section in the fall of 2004 told us that Schlozman 

told him he was hoping to free up some slots in the Appellate Section for 

“good Americans.” 

The second replacement attorney was hired in March 2006, after 

all three of the attorneys had been transferred. Flynn said Schlozman 

invited her to an interview he was conducting of an applicant. After the 

interview, Schlozman asked Flynn if she had any objection to hiring the 

applicant to work in the Appellate Section. Flynn told us that she was 

not aware that there were any openings in the section at that time and 

that she recalled that Schlozman had told her Attorneys A, B, and C were 

transferred because the section was being reduced in size. Flynn said 

the applicant seemed to have excellent qualifications, and under the 

circumstances she did not object. The applicant had clerked for two 

federal judges and had worked at a law firm with Gregory Garre, who 

had recently been appointed as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. 

Garre had recommended the applicant in an e-mail to AAG Kim and 

Schlozman, praising the applicant’s work and noting, “We have had 

many conversations about the matters of the day, and [the applicant] has 

always shown himself to be an extremely solid conservative and 

supporter of the President.” The applicant was hired. 

3. Complaints About the Transfers 

Attorneys A, B, and C all eventually returned to the Appellate 

Section after Schlozman left the Division. Attorney A filed a formal Equal 

Employment Opportunity complaint in 2005 about her transfer. AAG 

Kim told us he decided to settle the matter shortly after being confirmed 

as AAG in November 2005 and transferred Attorney A back to the 

Appellate Section in October 2006. 

In November 2006, after more than a year on the Senate detail, 

Attorney B said she contacted Kim about returning to the Appellate 

Section. Kim said he approved her request. 

Attorney C told us she met with Kim in April 2007 upon her 

second request to return to the Appellate Section. Kim told us that after 

41 
a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding Attorney C’s 

transfer out of the Appellate Section, he agreed to allow her to return to 

the section. 

4. Analysis 

We concluded that Schlozman inappropriately considered political 

and ideological affiliations when he forced three career attorneys to 

transfer from the Appellate Section. 

As noted above, Schlozman frequently criticized the attorney staff 

in the Appellate Section and talked of his plan, when he “came into 

power,” to move certain attorneys from the section to make room for “real 

Americans.” Based on our interviews and our review of numerous 

e-mails, we found that Schlozman used the term “real Americans” to 

refer to individuals with conservative political views. Appellate Section 

Chief Flynn also told us that Schlozman named Appellate Section 

Attorneys A, B, and C as among several in the section whom he 

considered to be “disloyal,” “not one of us,” “against us,” “not on the 

team,” or “treacherous” and whom he wanted to move out of the section. 

In particular, Schlozman told Flynn that he viewed Attorney A as a 

“political opponent” because she had worked in the front office of the 

Division during the Clinton administration. Flynn said Schlozman 

“[o]ften brought up Attorney A – and politics. Said when he obtained 

power, he would get her out.” 

Despite telling Flynn the transfers were required because the 

section was losing three attorney positions, Schlozman hired two 

attorneys for the Appellate Section after he began transferring attorneys 

from the section. The first replacement attorney was hired in September 

2005, a few months after Attorney A’s transfer. An Appellate Section 

attorney told us that Schlozman had asked him to solicit conservative 

lawyers to work in the Division and that the Appellate attorney had 

recommended the first replacement attorney. The second replacement 

attorney was recommended in an e-mail as being “an extremely solid 

conservative and supporter of the President.” 

We found unpersuasive and pretextual Schlozman’s efforts to 

justify the transfers of Attorneys A and C on the basis of their 

performance. Section Chief Flynn told us that she did not want either 

attorney to be transferred and said she told Schlozman that at the time 

he ordered their transfers. In addition, both attorneys had consistently 

received favorable annual performance appraisals, including 

commendations for their work on particular civil rights cases. We also 

found pretextual Schlozman’s e-mail suggesting that he transferred 

Attorney B to enable a replacement attorney to be assigned to the 

42 
Appellate Section while Attorney B was on detail. Attorney B sought the 

detail because all of her civil rights cases had been reassigned to other 

attorneys and her caseload was composed entirely of OIL briefs. Flynn 

told us that Schlozman had directed her not to assign any important 

matters to Attorney B because she was not “one of us.” In addition, 

when AAG Kim told Attorney B that she could return to the Appellate 

Section at the end of her detail, Schlozman confirmed that Attorney B’s 

politics had been a factor in her transfer. He told Kim that Attorney B 

would be fine in Appellate “[i]f she is assigned to cases where she will not 

be able to use (as she often does) her political ideology to thwart 

positions advocated by the Division’s leadership[.]” 

In sum, we believe that Schlozman’s transfer of these attorneys 

violated Department policy and federal law, and also constituted 

misconduct. 

B. Case Assignments and Other Personnel Actions 

1. Factual Overview 

We also concluded that Schlozman considered political or 

ideological affiliations in his handling of case assignments and awards 

for career attorneys. 

Appellate Section Chief Flynn told us that after Schlozman became 

Acting AAG in June 2005, he became very involved in the day-to-day 

assignment and staffing of cases in the Appellate Section. According to 

Flynn, Schlozman directed her to assign important cases to new, 

inexperienced attorneys he had hired. In an e-mail from Schlozman to 

Flynn dated December 4, 2003, Schlozman wrote, “Please let me know 

when you decide who is going to argue this 4th Circuit voting appeal. If 

[specific Appellate attorney] is going to do it, that’s fine. If it’s the other 

atty on the case, I will have either Hans [von Spakovsky] (or possibly 

myself) do it instead. The potential stakes are too great to entrust this to 

either a lib or an idiot.” 

Flynn also said that Schlozman directed her not to assign 

important cases to certain attorneys. For example, she said that a Civil 

Rights Division front office Counsel told her that Schlozman was not 

comfortable with a particular Appellate attorney working on anything 

significant.36 Flynn considered that attorney to be among the best 

 36 The front office Counsel told us she did not know why Schlozman made the 

decision to restrict assignments to that attorney. She said she thought the attorney 

was talented and she did not agree with the decision to limit the attorney’s caseload, 

but that it was “not her call to make.”

43 
lawyers in the section. Flynn said, however, that Schlozman had often 

commented about the attorney that she was “not on the team” and was 

“against us.” 

In addition, according to Flynn, Schlozman precluded one of the 

Appellate Section deputy chiefs from reviewing any important cases. An 

Appellate Section attorney told us that Schlozman had also commented 

to him that the deputy was liberal and not trustworthy. The attorney 

said Schlozman told him he should not trust any of the Appellate 

Section’s management except Flynn, whom Schlozman described as 

conservative because she was promoted to section chief during the 

Reagan administration.37

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar told us that Schlozman 

directed her to add a column to her section’s weekly report to the front 

office that described staffing of cases so that he could see who was 

assigned to which cases. Cutlar said that if Schlozman did not like the 

case assignment he would direct her to make a change in the staffing. 

Cutlar said Schlozman told her not to assign any important cases to an 

attorney whom Schlozman had heard had an anti-Bush bumper sticker 

posted in her office. Cutlar said Schlozman accused her of “trying to 

circumvent [him]” when she assigned an important case to that attorney. 

She said Schlozman made her reassign the matter. In an August 27, 

2003, e-mail to Cutlar, Schlozman inquired whether Cutlar had told him 

that a Special Litigation Section attorney “was going to be promoted to 

senior counsel? I may have just forgotten. She is a nice girl, but I know 

her politics and she will require close supervision if she is now a 

reviewer.” 

Other e-mails demonstrated that Schlozman considered politics in 

his management of case assignments in the Division’s Employment 

Litigation Section. For example, in an e-mail dated December 17, 2004, 

regarding a case involving the New York City fire department, Schlozman 

inquired of Employment Litigation Section Chief Palmer about the lead 

attorney assigned to the case: “[The section attorney] is a pinko. So why 

is she leading this impt [important] case?” In another e-mail to Palmer 

dated November 18, 2004, regarding case referrals from the president 

and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative 

advocacy group, Schlozman commented on the attorney staff in the 

Employment Litigation Section: “Now that you have a stable of 

 37 Two other persons we interviewed told us that Schlozman expressed concern 

about whether several career attorneys could “be trusted” because he believed they had 

not voted for President Bush in the 2004 election. 

44 
conservatives, I hope you are assigning each of these referrals to an 

attorney.” 

The evidence also indicated that Schlozman considered the politics 

of attorneys in the Division’s Voting Section. In an e-mail dated 

November 28, 2003, to front office Counsel von Spakovsky and Principal 

DAAG Bradshaw, Schlozman wrote about a particular Voting Section 

attorney, “If I recall correctly, [Voting Section attorney] is a crazy lib 

hans, am I right?” and “a detail would be a great way to get him out of 

our hair for 6 months.” 

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar said that Schlozman also 

considered politics in determining which attorneys would receive 

performance awards. Cutlar described an occasion when Schlozman 

called her while she was on vacation to discuss her award nominations. 

Cutlar told us that while she tried to point out to Schlozman the things 

the attorneys had done to deserve the awards, Cutlar said all Schlozman 

wanted to know about was their politics. According to Cutlar, when she 

told Schlozman she did not know the politics of the attorneys she 

supervised, Schlozman responded, “Stop telling me that. This is 

Washington.” 

2. Analysis 

We concluded that Schlozman inappropriately used political and 

ideological affiliations in managing the assignment of cases to attorneys 

in the sections of the Division he oversaw. According to Section Chiefs 

Flynn, Cutlar, and Palmer, Schlozman placed limitations on the 

assignment of cases to attorneys whom Schlozman described as “libs” or 

“pinkos,” and he requested that “important” cases be handled by 

conservative attorneys he had hired. In addition, Schlozman expressly 

inquired about the politics of Cutlar’s nominees for performance awards. 

In contrast, we found no evidence of political or ideological 

affiliations affecting attorney transfers or case assignments in the 

Division sections not supervised by Schlozman. The chiefs of the 

Educational Opportunities, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and 

Disability Rights Sections said that front office personnel did not involve 

themselves in such matters or otherwise interfere with their management 

of the sections. 

III. Management Failures 

The evidence described previously in this section demonstrated 

that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring, 

transferring, and assigning cases to career attorneys while in the Civil 

45 
Rights Division from 2003 to 2006. In this section, we examine whether 

Schlozman’s supervisors exercised sufficient oversight of his personnel 

actions, which we found violated federal law and Department policy. 

A. Factual Overview 

As Figure 1 in Chapter Two illustrates, there were three Assistant 

Attorneys General for the Civil Rights Division appointed by the President 

and confirmed by the Senate from 2001 through 2007. Ralph F. Boyd, 

Jr., served as AAG from July 2001 to July 2003; R. Alexander Acosta 

served in that position from August 2003 to June 2005; and Wan Kim 

was the AAG from November 2005 to August 2007.

Two Principal Deputy Assistant Attorneys General supervised 

Schlozman when he was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 

Division: (1) J. Michael Wiggins from May 2003, when Schlozman joined 

the Division, until October 2003, and (2) Sheldon Bradshaw from 

October 2003 through April 2005. Schlozman succeeded Bradshaw as 

Principal DAAG and remained in that position until becoming Acting 

AAG in June 2005. After Kim was confirmed as AAG in November 2005, 

Schlozman returned to the Principal DAAG post. 

We found that the Civil Rights Division hiring process operated 

without significant controversy during AAG Boyd’s tenure. Boyd issued a 

memorandum in February 2002 altering the hiring procedures in the 

Division and increasing the involvement of the front office in hiring. He 

told us he did so to broaden the pool of applicants considered for career 

positions. Boyd said his goals in hiring were both quality and diversity. 

He said he saw the need immediately upon becoming AAG to improve the 

diversity of attorneys within the Division, both in supervisory and line 

positions. Boyd resigned from the Department in July 2003, shortly 

after Schlozman joined the Division. 

Acosta told us that while he was AAG, the hiring process in the 

Division remained largely the same as it had been under Boyd. He 

altered the process slightly in a December 1, 2003, memorandum by 

setting specific deadlines and requiring that the Principal DAAG be 

included in the hiring process. He said he delegated responsibility for 

hiring along with the day-to-day management of the Division to Principal 

DAAG Bradshaw. Acosta told us he was not involved in the attorney 

hiring process and that attorneys were often hired without him knowing 

about it. 

Acosta acknowledged that Schlozman had significant responsibility 

for hiring during Acosta’s tenure as AAG. Acosta said he was not aware 

that Schlozman acted inappropriately in the hiring process. Acosta said 

46 
he believed that all attorneys hired in the Division were recommended by 

the section chief and the DAAG overseeing that section. Acosta said no 

one complained to him that inappropriate hiring practices were taking 

place. 

However, Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar told us 

she complained directly to Acosta about Schlozman’s intent to hire as 

her deputy an applicant whom she considered unqualified even for a line 

attorney position. Cutlar said she also told Acosta that Schlozman had 

hired a number of applicants she considered unqualified, although she 

told us she was not “bold enough” to tell Acosta she believed Schlozman 

was considering applicants’ political and ideological affiliations in making 

hiring decisions. Acosta, on the other hand, told us he had no 

recollection of Cutlar complaining to him about Schlozman’s hiring 

practices. According to Cutlar, Acosta declined to get involved, referring 

her instead to Principal DAAG Bradshaw. Cutlar said that when she 

complained to Bradshaw, he told her Schlozman handled hiring 

decisions. 

Acosta acknowledged that during his tenure as AAG he became 

aware of some problems with Schlozman’s management approach and 

conduct. He said Schlozman was “very loose with his language” and 

sometimes made inappropriate jokes. For example, Acosta described an 

instance in which Schlozman passed along an inappropriate e-mail.38 

Acosta also said that he became concerned about Schlozman’s judgment 

and “appropriateness” in approximately December 2004, when Acosta 

received notice of an attorney’s grievance regarding his performance 

appraisal. Acosta could not remember the name of the attorney or the 

specifics of his concerns, but said he asked Bradshaw to review the 

matter and grievances of other performance appraisals Schlozman had 

approved. Acosta said he became more concerned about Schlozman’s 

judgment around the time he was preparing to leave the Division in 

mid-2005 as a result of discussions Acosta had with retiring Voting 

 38 In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an 

e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were 

scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. 

Tanner’s response was, “Mary Frances Berry style – black and bitter.” Berry is an 

African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 

November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several 

Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the 

comment, “Y’all will appreciate Tanner’s response.” Acosta said that when he was made 

aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his 

role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so. Acosta said that he believed 

Schlozman wrote him the apology in an e-mail, but we were unable to retrieve Acosta’s 

e-mails and did not find such an e-mail among Schlozman’s recovered e-mail messages.

47 
Section Chief Joseph Rich about Schlozman’s management.39 Yet, 

Acosta took no action to alert those in his chain of command. 

As noted above, Wiggins served as Principal DAAG from December 

2002 to October 2003. He left the Department in May 2004 before our 

investigation began. Wiggins declined our request to be interviewed and 

because he was no longer a Department employee we could not compel 

him to cooperate with our investigation. In our investigation, however, 

we found several e-mails to or from Wiggins relating to Schlozman and 

hiring in the Division. For example, Wiggins received an e-mail from a 

federal judge on November 13, 2003, recommending his law clerk for an 

attorney position. Wiggins forwarded the e-mail recommendation to 

Schlozman, stating, “We need to hire this guy.” Schlozman’s e-mail reply 

inquired of Wiggins, “conservative?” Wiggins’s response was that the 

“Judge is. We can check this guy.” 

Bradshaw was the Principal DAAG for Acosta from October 2003 to 

April 2005. As noted above, Acosta delegated responsibility for hiring to 

Bradshaw. Bradshaw said neither he nor Schlozman considered 

impermissible factors in hiring. He said that there was an effort to hire 

people who would not attempt to expand the scope of the law or create 

policy. Bradshaw said that during his tenure the Civil Rights Division 

hired “plenty” of liberal attorneys and promoted a large number of career 

attorneys, an overwhelming number of whom he believed were liberal. 

Bradshaw also said it was not a problem in his view to hire 

conservatives. It would only be a problem, he said, if conservatives were 

hired and liberals were excluded. Bradshaw believed that any tendency 

toward hiring conservatives in the Division was likely explained by the 

tendency of conservatives to apply during a Republican administration. 

Bradshaw acknowledged that he heard Schlozman call people “libs 

and commies,” but said Schlozman did not do so in the context of hiring. 

As noted previously, Bradshaw also stated that Schlozman’s use of terms 

such as “good American,” “fine American,” and “on the team” was 

ideologically neutral, meaning simply that the person was a hard worker 

or a “good guy.” 

Former AAG Kim said that during the time he was a DAAG, from 

August 2003 to November 2005, Bradshaw and Schlozman made most of 

the final decisions on attorney hiring. As described above, Kim recalled 

an instance while he was a DAAG when a concern about improper hiring 

 39 Acosta added that when he learned in early 2007 that Schlozman was being 

considered for the position of Director of EOUSA, he told Kyle Sampson, the Chief of 

Staff to the Attorney General, that he did not believe Schlozman was suitable for the 

position.

48 
considerations by Schlozman was brought to his attention by former Civil 

Rights Division front office Counsel Andrew Lelling. According to Kim, in 

about March 2004 Lelling told him that Lelling had recommended a 

colleague for a position in the Civil Rights Division to Schlozman, and 

Schlozman asked him whether his colleague was conservative. When 

Lelling said he did not think so, Schlozman told him that “he probably 

won’t be hired.” 

Kim said Lelling’s call bothered him and within a week of speaking 

to Lelling, Kim raised the subject of improper hiring considerations with 

Schlozman. Kim said he made clear to Schlozman that it would be 

unlawful and impermissible under the Civil Service Reform Act to make 

hiring decisions based on political affiliations. However, Kim said he did 

not report the call from Lelling or his concerns about Schlozman to his 

supervisors at the time – either Bradshaw or Acosta. Kim said he 

thought that Schlozman had not been aware of the requirements of the 

law concerning hiring, and by making Schlozman aware of the law, Kim 

believed he had appropriately addressed the issue. Kim said this was the 

only conversation he had with Schlozman on this issue. 

We found two e-mails about hiring that Schlozman sent to Kim 

while both were DAAGs that should have raised further concerns for Kim 

about Schlozman’s hiring practices. As discussed previously, in a 

January 30, 2004, e-mail, Schlozman declined an invitation from Kim to 

join him for lunch, noting, “Unfortunately I have an interview at 1 with 

some lefty who we’ll never hire but I’m extending a courtesy interview as 

a favor.” Kim said he was disturbed when he found this e-mail in 

preparation for his interview with us. He said he did not recall the e-mail 

and said he had never had a conversation with Schlozman that was 

similar in substance to the e-mail. 

In a second e-mail, dated March 15, 2004, Schlozman told Kim, 

“We need to start thinking about [Criminal Section] lateral hires. I fear 

that [Criminal Section Chief] Al [Moskowitz] and his minions will be 

sorting through the résumés looking for [name of attorney] clones who 

are big libs and would enforce certain of our statutes only with great 

reluctance.” Again, Kim said he had no recollection of the e-mail and 

said he probably ignored it when he received it. 

Kim told us that when he became the AAG in November 2005, he 

had concerns about Schlozman serving as his principal deputy. He said 

it was not his decision to make Schlozman the principal deputy. He said 

he was told by the Presidential Personnel Office when he became AAG 

that Schlozman would be his Principal DAAG. Kim said he did not 

delegate his hiring authority to Schlozman and was “very clear” with 

Schlozman about how he was to handle matters on Kim’s behalf. 

49 
Kim said he learned after he became the AAG that Schlozman had 

executed a plan to transfer three attorneys from the Appellate Section 

whom he considered to be “liberal” and “disloyal” so he could replace 

them with “real Americans.” Kim told us that was the “last straw.” He 

said Schlozman was taking actions as his Principal DAAG that were 

inconsistent with his interests. However, Kim said he never discussed 

the transfers with Schlozman. Kim said he had stopped speaking to 

Schlozman by that time as Schlozman was about to leave the Division to 

become the interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. 

Many of the Division attorneys we interviewed, including Kim, said they 

were relieved when Schlozman left the Division. 

Kim said that when Schlozman’s tenure as interim U.S. Attorney 

for the Western District of Missouri was coming to an end in early 2007, 

Kim learned that Schlozman was being considered for the position of 

Director of EOUSA. Kim contacted Courtney Elwood, Deputy Chief of 

Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General, to tell her he thought it was 

a “bad idea” to put Schlozman in that position. Kim said he was “really 

concerned about Schlozman’s fitness to serve.” 

Kim also described Schlozman as being “ridiculously brash” and 

someone who often would say things to make himself seem important. 

Kim said that people who knew Schlozman often discounted what he 

said. Kim added that not everything Schlozman did was politically 

motivated. 

B. Analysis 

We believe that AAGs Acosta and Kim and Principal DAAGs 

Bradshaw and Wiggins had indications of potential problems in 

Schlozman’s actions and judgment, and that each had sufficient 

information about Schlozman’s conduct to have raised red flags 

warranting closer supervision of him. Indeed, Kim, Wiggins, and 

Bradshaw were informed of specific instances that should have raised 

concerns that Schlozman was using impermissible political 

considerations in making hiring decisions. Despite the warnings, they 

took no action to investigate, bring the matter to the attention of their 

supervisors, or change Schlozman’s role in hiring for the Division. 

For example, Cutlar said that in 2004 she told Acosta about 

Schlozman hiring applicants she considered to be unqualified. At that 

time, Acosta also became aware of an attorney grievance filed against 

Schlozman about his performance appraisal and learned that Schlozman 

forwarded an inappropriate, racially insensitive e-mail to other 

Department officials. Although these incidents did not directly relate to 

the consideration of political or ideological affiliations in hiring, these 

50 
matters should have put Acosta on notice of potential problems with 

Schlozman’s conduct and judgment. 

However, Acosta did not take sufficient action in response to the 

information. Acosta asked for Schlozman to apologize to him for 

forwarding the offensive e-mail, but he did not ensure that Schlozman 

was more closely supervised. Acosta’s response to Cutlar’s complaint 

was also passive. According to Cutlar, Acosta told her that Bradshaw 

handled hiring and that she should discuss the matter with him. With 

respect to an attorney’s grievance of a performance appraisal that was 

approved by Schlozman, Acosta also delegated further inquiry of the 

matter to Bradshaw. At the same time, Acosta allowed Schlozman to 

continue to control the hiring responsibilities for the sections he 

supervised and for the Honors Program. 

While Acosta said he developed greater concerns about 

Schlozman’s management by the middle of 2005, shortly before Acosta 

left the Division to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 

Florida, it was not until 2007, based on this same information, that 

Acosta expressed his concerns to anyone at the Department. At that 

time, he informed the Office of the Attorney General of his concerns 

about Schlozman’s suitability to become Director of EOUSA. Yet, Acosta 

took no steps while AAG to more closely manage Schlozman or reduce 

his role in hiring within the Division, and we found no evidence that 

Acosta raised any concerns before Schlozman became Acting AAG for the 

Civil Rights Division or interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of 

Missouri. 

In addition, as outlined above, both Wiggins and Bradshaw, as 

Schlozman’s direct supervisors when they were Principal DAAGs, had 

direct knowledge that Schlozman considered political or ideological 

affiliations in hiring, as evidenced by e-mails described in this report. 

For example, in an e-mail exchange with Schlozman about an applicant 

recommended by a judge, Wiggins responded to Schlozman’s inquiry as 

to whether the applicant was conservative by stating that the 

recommending judge was conservative and that he could find out about 

the applicant. Bradshaw joined Schlozman in the use of terms such as 

“good American,” “fine American,” “right thinking American,” and being 

“on the team.” As we previously noted, we concluded from the plain 

language of these e-mails, and the common understanding of virtually all 

of the people we interviewed who heard Schlozman use such terms, that 

they had a political and ideological meaning. 

Moreover, we found Bradshaw’s assertion that the terms “good 

American” and “on the team” were ideologically neutral and simply 

meant that the person was a hard worker or a “good guy” was not 

51 
credible. We also did not find credible Bradshaw’s assertion that 

Schlozman described attorney staff in the Civil Rights Division as being 

“libs” and “commies,” but never used such terms in the context of hiring. 

The e-mail evidence and statements of numerous Division attorneys 

described in this report show that Schlozman referred to applicants in 

such terms in the context of hiring and that Bradshaw was aware of his 

doing so. 

We also found that AAG Kim could and should have taken 

additional action to prevent Schlozman’s improper conduct. In March 

2004, when Kim and Schlozman were both DAAGs, Kim received the 

complaint from Lelling about Schlozman’s comment on an applicant who 

was not conservative. Kim handled the complaint by meeting with 

Schlozman and informing him of what constituted a prohibited personnel 

action. Kim did not notify Principal DAAG Bradshaw, AAG Acosta, or 

anyone else (including the OIG, OPR, or the Office of Special Counsel). 

In addition to Lelling’s complaint, e-mails around the same time from 

Schlozman to Kim demonstrated that Schlozman was considering 

political and ideological affiliations in hiring decisions, and Kim did not 

take any action to address these concerns either. 

More significantly, when Kim became AAG, Schlozman remained in 

an influential position as Principal DAAG before becoming interim 

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. When Kim learned 

that Schlozman had transferred career attorneys from the Appellate 

Section because he believed they were “liberal” and “disloyal,” Kim never 

discussed the transfers with Schlozman because he had stopped 

speaking to him by then. Although Kim later reinstated the attorneys to 

the Appellate Section, he took no action against Schlozman at the time 

he first learned of Schlozman’s improper conduct. Only when Kim 

learned that Schlozman was being considered for the position of Director 

of EOUSA did he express his concern about Schlozman to Department 

officials. 

We concluded that Acosta and Kim did not sufficiently supervise 

Schlozman. In light of indications they had about Schlozman’s conduct 

and judgment, they failed to ensure that Schlozman’s hiring and 

personnel decisions were based on proper considerations. In addition, 

Bradshaw and Wiggins both had knowledge of Schlozman’s improper 

consideration of political and ideological affiliations in hiring, and they 

also failed to take action to ensure that Schlozman’s hiring decisions 

were consistent with the law and Department policy. 

52 
CHAPTER FOUR: 

SCHLOZMAN’S FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS 

On June 5, 2007, Schlozman testified under oath before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with its investigation into the 

use of political considerations in the hiring and firing of career attorneys 

at the Department of Justice. At the time of his testimony, Schlozman 

was Associate Counsel to the Director of EOUSA.40 

On September 6, 2007, after resigning from the Department, 

Schlozman responded by letter to supplemental questions for the record 

posed to him in writing by several Senators as a follow-up to his Senate 

Judiciary testimony. 

 We believe that Schlozman made false statements to the Senate 

Judiciary Committee, both in his sworn testimony and in his written 

responses to the supplemental questions for the record. In this section, 

we describe Schlozman’s statements and the evidence that we believe 

demonstrates their falsity. The evidence cited below has been described 

in previous sections of this report. However, we describe it again here to 

compare his statements with the evidence supporting our conclusion 

that the statements were false. 

I. Statements About Hiring 

During the June 5, 2007, hearing before the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, Schlozman stated in response to questions from Senator 

Charles Schumer: 

Senator Schumer: Mr. Schlozman, is the policy against 

considering political and ideological affiliations in the hiring 

of career department employees formal or informal? 

Mr. Schlozman: I think it is pursuant to a civil service 

statute for career employees -- the Hatch Act. 

Senator Schumer: So it’s formal 

Mr. Schlozman: Yeah. 

Senator Schumer: Yeah. Did you ever violate it? 

 40 As discussed above, Schlozman had left the Civil Rights Division in March 

2006 to become interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, a position he 

held until he was replaced in March 2007. At that time, he was transferred to EOUSA. 

He left the Department in August 2007. 

53 
Mr. Schlozman: I did not. 

Senator Schumer: Did you ever, quote, “cross the line,” as 

Ms. Goodling has admitted doing? 

Mr. Schlozman: I did not. 

Schlozman’s answers show that he was aware that consideration of 

political and ideological affiliations was prohibited in hiring attorneys for 

career civil service positions at the Department. As discussed above, 

then-DAAG Wan Kim had also warned him about engaging in such 

practices. Kim said he told Schlozman around March 2004 that it was 

unlawful and impermissible to make hiring decisions for career positions 

based on political affiliations.41

According to Kim, he brought this prohibition to Schlozman’s 

attention because of a telephone call Kim had received from Andrew 

Lelling, who had previously worked in the front office of the Civil Rights 

Division as Counsel to AAG Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. In the telephone call, 

Lelling complained to Kim that Schlozman was considering political or 

ideological affiliations when making hiring decisions. Kim said Lelling 

told him that Schlozman had asked Lelling whether a colleague whom 

Lelling was recommending for a position in the Division’s Criminal 

Section was conservative. When Lelling indicated that he did not think 

his colleague was conservative, Schlozman said he would not be hired. 

Schlozman’s testimony in response to Senator Schumer’s question 

that he did not violate the law, or “cross the line,” by considering political 

factors in attorney hiring is contradicted by other evidence. Most 

directly, Schlozman admitted to Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta 

Cutlar in approximately March 2007 that he had considered politics. 

According to Cutlar, Schlozman told her, “You know, I was thinking I 

probably made some mistakes . . . . I probably considered politics when I 

shouldn’t have.” Later in the same conversation, Schlozman said, “Well, 

I’m just saying I got caught up in the group mentality. You know how it 

is.” Cutlar said that Schlozman concluded this conversation by again 

admitting that “maybe I’ve made some mistakes. Maybe I considered 

politics when I shouldn’t have.”42 

 

(Cont.) 

41 Kim said he “basically parrot[ed] the requirements of the CSRA” to 

Schlozman. In his testimony, Schlozman erroneously referenced the Hatch Act, a 

federal statute that regulates partisan political activity by federal employees, rather 

than the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. 

42 In a subsequent telephone conversation with Cutlar during the same time 

frame, Schlozman retreated from his admissions about his consideration of politics in 

hiring. Cutlar said in this follow-up telephone conversation Schlozman told her, “You 

54 
The evidence also showed that Schlozman boasted to others about 

using political and ideological affiliations in hiring for career Civil Rights 

Division attorney positions. For example, during his June 5 Senate 

testimony, Schlozman acknowledged that he had boasted about his 

hiring of Republicans and conservatives in the Division.43 

Another example is an e-mail dated January 6, 2004, from 

Schlozman to an attorney hired by Schlozman in the Civil Rights 

Division. Shortly after being hired, the attorney sent an e-mail to 

Schlozman expressing his happiness in the Special Litigation Section, 

noting that his “office is even next to a Federalist Society member.” 

Schlozman replied, “Just between you and me, we hired another member 

of ‘the team’ yesterday. And still another ideological comrade will be 

starting in one month. So we are making progress.” 

Employment Litigation Section Chief David Palmer also told us 

that he heard Schlozman express pleasure about his bringing “RTAs,” 

meaning “right-thinking Americans,” and Republicans into the Division. 

Palmer added, “I don’t want to say that [Schlozman] had a preference, 

but [he] liked hiring conservatives.” Lelling told us that Schlozman “was 

always very unapologetically clear about the kind of people he wanted 

hired into the Department . . . . [H]e want[ed] people in the Department 

who [were] conservative on the legal issues, maybe conservative period.” 

Accounts from several other people we interviewed and e-mails 

provided further evidence that political and ideological affiliations were 

factors in Schlozman’s hiring decisions throughout his tenure in the Civil 

Rights Division. According to Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn, 

Schlozman was open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the 

attorney staff of the Appellate Section. She told us that in conversations 

with her Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate Section lawyers 

hired during prior administrations as “Democrats” and “liberals” and 

said they were “disloyal,” could not be trusted, and were not “on the 

team.” Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of them out of 

the Civil Rights Division as he could to make room for the “real 

Americans” and “right-thinking Americans” he wanted to hire. As 

discussed previously, based on accounts from numerous Division 

 

know I didn’t do anything wrong.” Cutlar also told us that during that telephone 

conversation Schlozman repeated several times that he wanted her to know and 

remember that he considered her to be “a close and personal friend.” 

43 Senator Schumer: Did you ever boast to anyone that you hired a certain 

number of Republicans or conservatives for any division or section at the Justice 

Department? 

 Mr. Schlozman: I mean, I probably have made statements like that. 

55 
employees and officials – including Kim and Section Chiefs Cutlar and 

Flynn – and from the context of Schlozman’s use in e-mails of terms such 

as “real American,” “right-thinking American,” and being “on the team,” 

the evidence indicated that these terms were Schlozman’s way of 

referring to politically conservative applicants and attorneys. 

A May 9, 2003, e-mail provides additional evidence of the meaning 

of Schlozman’s phrases. Luis Reyes, then Counsel to the AAG for the 

Civil Division, sent an e-mail to Schlozman in connection with a legal 

matter, endorsing an attorney in the Department’s Office of Legal Policy 

as a “right thinking american to say the least.” In an e-mail response, 

Schlozman wrote that he “just spoke with [the attorney] to verify his 

political leanings and it is clear he is a member of the team.” 

Other e-mails showed that Schlozman viewed applicants 

unfavorably who were Democrats or deemed liberal. For example, in 

November 2003, when a Department attorney forwarded to Schlozman 

the résumé of a recent law school graduate clerking for a federal judge 

who was interested in working at the Department, Schlozman forwarded 

the résumé to a Division front office Counsel, commenting that “this has 

lib written all over it. let’s discuss[.]”44 

On November 13, 2003, Principal DAAG J. Michael Wiggins sent 

an e-mail to Schlozman containing a magistrate judge’s recommendation 

of his law clerk for a position in the Civil Rights Division. The magistrate 

judge described his clerk as “a very able lawyer” who would be “a good 

addition to your staff.” Wiggins noted to Schlozman, “We need to hire 

this guy[.]” In a one-word e-mail reply to Wiggins, Schlozman wrote: 

“conservative?” 

In an e-mail to a Division front office Counsel dated January 12, 

2004, Schlozman inquired about an attorney being referred as a 

candidate for a career civil service position by asking, “how does he view 

the world, if you know what I mean?” Schlozman added in the e-mail 

“(and for God’s sake, don’t forward this email!).” 

On January 30, 2004, Schlozman sent an e-mail to Kim declining 

an invitation to join Kim for lunch, noting, “Unfortunately I have an 

interview at 1 with some lefty who we’ll never hire but I’m extending a 

courtesy interview as a favor.” In another e-mail dated March 5, 2004, 

Schlozman wrote to a Division attorney that a Criminal Section deputy 

 44 The applicant’s résumé showed prior employment for three Democratic 

members of Congress as well as positions in the Department of Education and the 

Office of Justice Programs during the Clinton administration. Although the applicant 

appeared to be qualified for the position, she was not hired. 

56 
“has recommended several other commies for permanent positions in 

[the section]. [Criminal Section Chief Moskowitz] probably would concur 

with his recommendations. But as long as I’m here, adherents of Mao’s 

little red book need not apply.” 

Schlozman sent another e-mail to Kim dated March 15, 2004, 

stating in part, “We need to start thinking about [Criminal Section] 

lateral hires. I fear that [Moskowitz] and his minions will be sorting 

through the résumés looking for [name of attorney] clones who are big 

libs and would enforce certain of our statutes only with great reluctance.” 

Also on March 15, 2004, Schlozman sent an e-mail expressing his 

uncertainty about whether an applicant for the Division’s Special 

Litigation Section was conservative because she had interned at the 

ACLU.45 The applicant told us that Schlozman called and questioned her 

about her internship and asked whether she was a member of the ACLU. 

She said she assured him that she was not a member and that she had 

interned with the ACLU to learn about constitutional law. According to 

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar, Schlozman hired the applicant, 

even though Cutlar objected for other reasons, once Schlozman was 

satisfied that the applicant was not an ACLU member. 

In an e-mail dated May 27, 2005, Employment Litigation Section 

Chief Palmer asked Schlozman whether he was aware that a new Honors 

Program attorney who had been assigned to the section had worked for 

the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. Schlozman’s reply e-mail stated 

that he “kn[e]w all about him. He will be okay. (He worked as intern in 

[the Bush administration’s] W[hite] H[ouse] Counsel’s Office.) But he was 

forced on us anyway and got the nod over my objection. Still, I expect 

you to monitor him very, very carefully.” 

The evidence outlined above also supports the finding that 

Schlozman made false statements in his written responses to a question 

for the record from Senator Leahy asking whether Schlozman ever 

considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring for career attorney 

positions. Senator Leahy’s question and Schlozman’s response were as 

follows: 

Q: When considering, recommending or approving 

candidates for appointment to career positions at the 

Department, did you ever consider applicants’ political party 

affiliation, ideology, membership in a nonprofit organization 

 45 March 15, 2004, e-mail from Schlozman to Civil Rights Division Counsel Matt 

Zandi: “Matt, if [the applicant] is so conservative, how is it that she was a member of 

the ACLU in Tennessee during law school?” 

57 
or loyalty to the President, or otherwise screen potential 

career hires for political allegiance? If so, please provide 

details. Are you aware of whether others at the Department 

considered those factors in making decision regarding career 

hires? If so, whom? 

A: During my tenure, all candidates for career attorney 

employment were judged individually based on a 

comprehensive review of their academic background, legal 

and analytical skills, unique life experiences, interest in the 

work of the Department, and a personal interview. 

Applicants were not hired based on their political party 

affiliation, membership in a nonprofit organization, or loyalty 

to the President. 

With respect to ideology, I did not employ any sort of 

ideological litmus test. I sought instead to hire individuals 

who would vigorously enforce the laws under the Civil Rights 

Division’s jurisdiction, irrespective of their own political or 

ideological views. Of course, to the extent an applicant 

expressed a strong interest, or had a particularly developed 

background, in one of the Division’s enforcement priorities – 

e.g., religious liberties, human trafficking, minority language 

issues, institutional reform, etc. – I considered that to be a 

positive. 

We believe the evidence summarized above shows that 

Schlozman’s answer was false, particularly when he stated, “Applicants 

were not hired based on their political party affiliation, membership in a 

nonprofit organization, or loyalty to the President,” and that he did not 

“employ any sort of ideological litmus test.” We found several instances 

in which Schlozman inquired directly if an applicant was “conservative” 

and many more in which he used such substitute phrases as “good 

American,” “right-thinking American,” or being “on the team” in 

assessing whether the applicant should be hired. Moreover, several of 

the career section chiefs supervised by Schlozman told us that 

Schlozman routinely ignored applicants’ qualifications for the job and the 

assessments and recommendations of the career supervisors when 

making hiring decisions. 

In sum, we believe the evidence in our investigation contradicts 

Schlozman’s testimony and written responses to supplemental questions 

for the record. The evidence shows that Schlozman also violated 

Department policy and federal law that prohibits considering political 

and ideological affiliations in hiring career employees. 

58 
II. Statements About Appellate Section Attorney Transfers 

We also concluded that Schlozman made false statements about 

the transfer of the three Appellate Section attorneys, which we described 

in Chapter Three of this report. We believe that Schlozman answered 

falsely the following question for the record posed to him by Senator 

Dianne Feinstein: 

Q: Was your decision to order or suggest the transfer of any 

attorney out of the Appellate Section based, in whole or in 

part, on an intent to fill the position with an attorney who 

would adopt more conservative views? 

A: No. 

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar told us that Schlozman 

talked to her about moving Attorney A, the first attorney transferred from 

the Appellate Section. Cutlar said Schlozman referred to Attorney A as 

“a Democrat in hiding and is not going to hide in my Appellate Section.” 

An Appellate Section attorney also told us that after he had begun 

working in the section, Schlozman told him that he was hoping to free up 

some slots in the Appellate Section for “good Americans.” 

Appellate Section Chief Flynn also told us that Schlozman said 

many of the career attorneys in the Appellate Section were “disloyal,” 

“against us,” “not on the team,” and “treacherous.” Flynn said that 

Schlozman remarked to her on several occasions that when he “came 

into power” he wanted to move these career people out of the section to 

make way for “real Americans.” According to handwritten notes made by 

Flynn around the time of conversations she had with Schlozman in early 

2005, Schlozman named two of the three Appellate Division attorneys 

(Attorneys A and C) who were later forced to transfer from the Appellate 

Section as among several he wanted to transfer out of the section. In her 

notes, Flynn also recorded that Schlozman said “when he was in charge, 

he would at least get [Attorney A]” and “when he took over, people would 

‘be out one way or another.’ ” 

Flynn said that Schlozman told her that Attorney A had come from 

the front office of the prior administration and was “not on the team.”46 

In later notes made by Flynn before Schlozman became Acting AAG and 

assumed supervisory responsibility for the Appellate Section in June 

2005, Flynn wrote that Schlozman “viewed [Attorney A] as a political 

 46 This evidence also contradicts Schlozman’s response to Senator Kennedy’s 

supplemental question that the transfer of Attorney A had “nothing to do with her prior 

employment.” 

59 
opponent. Said she ha[s] had [a] ‘free ride’ here.” In other notes, Flynn 

wrote that Schlozman “[o]ften brought up [Attorney A] – and politics. 

Said when he obtained power, he would get her out.” Flynn’s notes also 

state that Schlozman had identified other Appellate Section attorneys, 

including Attorneys A and B, as being “disloyal” and that he “also 

apparently has problems with [Attorney C, among others].” 

Flynn also told us that within days of Schlozman becoming Acting 

AAG in June 2005, he met with Flynn and announced his plan to reduce 

the size of the Appellate Section by transferring three attorneys. Flynn’s 

notes of the meeting, made shortly afterwards, indicate that Schlozman 

stated that this was an opportunity to replace some poor attorneys and 

attorneys who were opposed to his “agenda” and bring in some “real 

Americans.” Flynn told us that Schlozman identified Attorney A as the 

first of the attorneys to be involuntarily transferred. Flynn said that 

Schlozman became irritated by her suggested alternatives to transferring 

attorneys from the section, which Flynn opposed, or transferring more 

junior attorneys if anyone had to be transferred. Flynn’s notes of the 

meeting also reflect that Schlozman said he was not concerned about 

maintaining the morale of the attorney staff in the Appellate Section. He 

said that from his perspective if more people left he would be able to 

replace them with people he wanted. 

Schlozman hired two attorneys for the Appellate Section after he 

began transferring attorneys purportedly to reduce the size of the 

section. The first replacement attorney was hired in September 2005, 

after Attorney A’s transfer. An Appellate Section attorney whom 

Schlozman had previously hired told us that the front office asked him to 

solicit conservative lawyers to work in the Division. The Appellate 

attorney recommended the replacement attorney that Schlozman 

subsequently hired. 

A second replacement attorney was hired in March 2006. This 

attorney was recommended in an e-mail to Kim and Schlozman by 

Gregory Garre, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, as being “an extremely 

solid conservative and supporter of the President.” 

In sum, we believe the evidence contradicts Schlozman’s 

statements that he did not order the transfer of any attorney from the 

Appellate Section so that he could replace them with more conservative 

attorneys. 

60 
III. Additional Statement About Hiring While Interim 

United States Attorney 

We analyzed another statement Schlozman made during his 

testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning his hiring 

practices while he was the interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District 

of Missouri. Schlozman was asked about the factors he considered in 

hiring when he was the interim U.S. Attorney. After explaining that he 

was not authorized to hire career Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) 

without authorization from EOUSA, Schlozman testified as follows: 

Senator Schumer: Did you ever consider political affiliation 

or ideology [in hiring while you were a U.S. Attorney]? 

Mr. Schlozman: I did not. 

We found an e-mail Schlozman sent on December 22, 2006, when 

he was an interim U.S. Attorney, to EOUSA in which he sought authority 

to fill vacant career AUSA positions. In the e-mail, Schlozman advocated 

for his top three choices, stating that they were all “rock-solid 

Americans” who would be a “hugely positive legacy for this 

Administration in this District.” Schlozman then discussed the 

qualifications of each candidate. Regarding the first applicant, 

Schlozman wrote that his “involvement with the Bush/Cheney campaign 

speaks for itself.” Regarding the second candidate, Schlozman noted 

that he met the applicant during the applicant’s clerkship with a 

“43-appointee,” a reference to a federal appellate judge appointed by 

President George W. Bush. Schlozman’s e-mail described the candidate 

as “a rock star talent in addition to being hard core (in the most positive 

sense of that phrase) on the issues[.]” Schlozman described the third 

applicant as “an obvious conservative of incredible intellect.” 

In his written response to Senator Leahy’s question for the record, 

Schlozman addressed the hiring of AUSAs in the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

and his December 22, 2006, e-mail to EOUSA. Senator Leahy’s question 

and Schlozman’s response were as follows: 

Q: When considering, recommending or approving 

candidates for appointment to career positions at the 

Department, did you ever consider applicants’ political party 

affiliation, ideology, membership in a nonprofit organization 

or loyalty to the President, or otherwise screen potential 

career hires for political allegiance? If so, please provide 

details. Are you aware of whether others at the Department 

considered those factors in making decision regarding career 

hires? If so, whom? 

61 
A: . . . As I noted at the hearing, I had heard rumors that 

Ms. Goodling considered political affiliation in approving 

hiring decisions for career positions. I also knew that, 

although the decision to authorize the hiring of AUSAs by 

interim U.S. Attorneys was technically vested in EOUSA, 

Ms. Goodling exercised great control in this area. Knowing 

this, and in order to maximize the chances of obtaining 

authority to hire an additional AUSA, I recall once noting the 

likely political leanings of several applicants in response to a 

query from EOUSA about the candidates being considered 

for the position. However, none of the individuals I 

referenced was hired, nor do I believe they were even 

interviewed. Indeed, I adopted an apolitical hiring process in 

which I completely turned over the process (i.e., selecting 

candidates to be interviewed, interviewing candidates, and 

recommending a candidate to be hired) to a hiring panel 

consisting of three veteran career prosecutors in my office – 

the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, the Senior Litigation 

Counsel, and a Supervisory [AUSA]. I had no role in the 

selection of candidates to be interviewed nor did I participate 

in the interviews; all of that was done by the three career 

prosecutors. The only thing I did was to formally make an 

offer to the candidate recommended by the hiring panel. 

We investigated the explanation Schlozman provided in this 

response. As an interim U.S. Attorney, Schlozman did not have 

authority to hire AUSAs without permission from the Department, 

through EOUSA. Schlozman’s e-mail to EOUSA touted the applicants’ 

political affiliations, and he received permission to fill certain AUSA 

vacancies. However, we determined that the subsequent hiring process 

at that office did not result in any of the applicants described in the 

e-mail receiving an offer of employment. 

We also determined that the hiring process for career AUSAs in the 

Western District of Missouri during Schlozman’s tenure as interim 

U.S. Attorney was handled by a panel of career AUSAs and that 

Schlozman was not involved in the hiring process beyond getting 

permission to fill the positions. Accordingly, we concluded that 

Schlozman’s response to Senator Leahy’s question for the record did not 

constitute a false statement regarding the hiring of the AUSAs in 

Missouri. 

However, we believe his response is misleading in that he 

suggested that his request to fill the AUSA positions was the only time he 

considered political affiliations in the hiring process. (“I recall once 

noting the likely political leanings of several applicants in response to a 

62 
query from EOUSA about the candidates being considered for the 

position.”) In fact, as detailed above, he often considered political and 

ideological affiliations in hiring decisions while in the Civil Rights 

Division. 

IV. Criminal Referral 

We have referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

District of Columbia for a decision on whether the evidence warrants a 

criminal prosecution. We provided to the prosecutor the evidence we 

gathered in the course of our investigation, including transcripts of 

interviews and relevant documents and e-mails. 

63 
CHAPTER FIVE: 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our investigation examined whether: 

(1) the Civil Rights Division improperly used political or ideological 

affiliations in assessing applicants for career attorney positions, 

including hiring for both experienced attorneys and entry-level 

attorneys through the Honors Program; 

(2) political or ideological affiliations resulted in other personnel 

actions that affected career attorneys in the Division, such as 

attorney transfers and attorney case assignments; 

(3) the Division’s senior management exercised appropriate 

oversight of Schlozman’s actions in the hiring and treatment of 

career attorneys; and 

(4) Schlozman made false statements in his testimony to Congress 

about these matters. 

The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as 

a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career 

attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the 

Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law – the Civil 

Service Reform Act – and Department policy that prohibit discrimination 

in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and 

committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division 

managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman 

did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices. 

Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he 

considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn 

testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written 

responses to supplemental questions from the Committee. 

Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, 

therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We 

recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these 

findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the 

future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set 

forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department 

policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him 

unsuitable for federal service. 

64 
65 

We also recommend that the Department consider taking 

additional action in light of the findings in this report. According to a 

March 2008 memorandum from the Attorney General, beginning in the 

summer of 2007, new political employees at the Department are briefed 

on “Merit System Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices” as part 

of their orientation process. In the memorandum, the Attorney General 

expressed a commitment to “ensur[e] that all serving political appointees 

are provided the same information” and that they must acknowledge that 

they understand the principles. 

In addition to these positive steps already taken, we recommend 

that the Department regularly provide training on merit system 

principles and prohibited personnel practices in the Civil Service Reform 

Act, federal regulations, and Department policies to personnel with a role 

in hiring or supervising career employees. Most of the Department 

attorneys we interviewed who had a role in the hiring process told us 

they received no such training on the applicable laws, regulations, and 

Department policies regarding the consideration of political and 

ideological affiliations or other impermissible factors. Most also said they 

only had a general sense of what considerations were prohibited. We 

believe that training should be provided to employees when they enter 

supervisory positions and when they assume any hiring responsibilities. 

The Department should also provide periodic refresher training 

reinforcing the law regarding impermissible factors in hiring and 

personnel actions. 

We also recommend that the Department consider issuing periodic 

statements to all employees about what constitutes prohibited personnel 

practices under federal law, regulations, and Department policy. These 

statements should affirm that the Department, as an employer, is 

committed to compliance with all laws, regulations, and policies. The 

Department should provide information to employees about how they can 

report violations and where they can seek redress. 

In sum, our report found that Schlozman considered political and 

ideological affiliations when hiring and taking other personnel actions 

relating to career attorneys, in violation of Department policy and federal 

law, and his actions also constitute misconduct. We also believe he 

made false statements to Congress about his actions. 

We believe that the Department should take action, including 

implementing our recommendations, to help ensure that such conduct 

does not occur in the future. 
APPENDIX: 

CAREER ATTORNEY HIRING, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, 

2003 – 2006 

Listed below are affiliations found on applicants’ résumés or 

application material credentials that resulted in our counting an 

applicant as Republican, conservative, Democrat, or liberal: 

Republican 

Membership in Republican group 

Republican National Lawyers Association 

Republican Student Lawyers Association 

College Republicans 

Young Republicans 

Republican Women 

Filipino-American Republicans 

Employment or internship with Republican Member of Congress or 

state legislator 

Employment or internship with Republican organization 

Republican National Committee 

Republican Policy Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives 

National GOP Congressional Committee 

Participated in Republican political campaign 

Elected GOP councilman 

Ran for delegate to GOP convention 

Bush/Cheney volunteer 

Worked as staff on GOP candidate’s campaign 

Employment at Bush White House 

Participation on George W. Bush presidential library steering 

committee

Conservative 

Federalist Society 

Coalition for Life 

Blackstone Fellowship 

A-1 
Democrat 

Employment with Democratic Member of Congress 

Political appointee during Democratic administration 

Liberal 

Employment or internship with group 

American Civil Liberties Union 

Homeless Advocacy Project 

Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless 

A-2