WITNESS
William Yeomans serves as Director of Programs at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS). Mr. Yeomans came to ACS in April 2005 after more than 26 years of service in the Department of Justice. He spent 24 of those years in the Civil Rights Division, where he held various litigation, policy development, and leadership roles. He began in the Civil Rights Division as a trial attorney, briefing and arguing cases in most of the Federal Courts of Appeals and briefing numerous Supreme Court cases. He then moved into a succession of leadership positions, serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Staff, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General. During this period, he supervised litigation, worked extensively with Congress and the White House and played a key role in formulating policy regarding civil rights issues, including affirmative action, hate crimes, police misconduct, school desegregation, reproductive rights and discrimination in employment, housing and voting. Mr. Yeomans has degrees from Harvard Law School (LL.M) and Boston University School of Law and is currently an adjunct professor of law at the Washington College of Law, American University.
Back to Witness List
|
STATEMENT
…Recent reports have revealed that the [U.S. Department of Justice's] Civil Rights Division's productivity has declined dramatically because of changes in priorities and because of an effort to drive out experienced attorneys and to replace them with less experienced attorneys chosen in part because of ideology. As a result, traditional areas of enforcement have suffered. Congress should examine the decline in enforcement activity, including the apparent turn away from enforcement of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act to redress unconstitutional conditions in prisons and jails. It should examine whether the decline is appropriate because prior successful enforcement has made further activity less necessary or there has been a general improvement in conditions in prisons and jails for other reasons.
It should also explore whether the decline results from a policy determination that such enforcement is somehow less desirable. If so, the policy should be aired and examined. Congress should also examine the methods used to resolve those cases that are being pursued to determine whether the less adversarial approach being employed produces results or whether it fails to give the Division sufficient leverage to ensure meaningful remedies. Congress should also examine the resources available for this work.
Congress should also consider addressing the Division's lack of authority to gain access to facilities and records short of initiating discovery. Compulsory access might well help to shorten investigations and curtail the need for some litigation.
Excerpted from a written statement submitted to the Commission
Download the complete written statement
Note: Some witnesses submitted documents in addition to the written statement they prepared for the hearing. In most cases, those documents are not available on the Commission's web site.
|
|
