Just how daunting the challenge Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey faces in restoring the reputation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) severely tarnished by political scandals was again demonstrated by a recent government report documenting that senior DOJ officials had based hiring decisions for non-political career positions on the applicants' political and ideological affiliations in violation of Department policy and federal law. This politicization of the Department's hiring process for career employees harms the Department's credibility and effectiveness, and sends the wrong message to lawyers of all political stripes who seek to engage in public service, as a lawsuit filed by one of the students discriminated against suggests.

The report, issued jointly by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General (IG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), shows that highly qualified attorneys and law students who applied for the Department's summer intern and career honors program -- the exclusive means by which DOJ hires recent law school graduates and judicial law clerks without prior experience -- were "deselected" because of their association with "liberal" organizations.

The report revealed that those discriminated against included members of my organization, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), a growing network of progressive lawyers, law students, law professors and judges, whose mission is to promote the vitality of our Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses: individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy, and the rule of law. Many of our members are committed to public service and hundreds have served in past administrations, both Democratic and Republican.

The OIG/OPR report found a pattern of deselecting candidates based on political or ideological affiliation. For example, all seven of the candidates for the honors program in 2002 who indicated that they were ACS members "were deselected by the Screening Committee for interviews." By contrast, of the 29 candidates for the honors program affiliated with the conservative Federalist Society, only 2 applicants were "deselected." Similarly, 12 of 13 applicants for the summer intern program who were affiliated with ACS were "deselected" for job interviews, while not one of the 12 applicants who were Federalist Society members was deselected. The pattern was mirrored for applicants associated with other progressive causes, with a disproportionate number of the deselected candidates having liberal affiliations as compared to the candidates with conservative affiliations. Among the many dozens of public interest groups flagged as "liberal" were the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, the Innocence Project and the National Wildlife Federation.

Like all executive branch agencies, the Justice Department is made up of political appointees and career employees. Both groups are essential to the effective administration of justice and the Department has long had a reputation for recruiting top law school graduates and lawyers from across the political spectrum to work together. And, while it is entirely appropriate to take ideology and past political affiliations into account when hiring political appointees, this is not so for career employees, who for both legal and policy reasons must be hired strictly on merit. Indeed, when hiring is not based on merit, it corrupts the system, undermining the Department's work and integrity.

DOJ's mission includes working "to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." For decades, service at the Justice Department has been considered among the highest callings in the legal profession. Representing the United States as a DOJ attorney has been synonymous with standing for justice and the rule of law. For the Department to achieve its mission, judges, juries and the public must have confidence that the Department's actions are based on an honest appraisal of the law, not partisan political pressures. The Department's reputation for integrity has been based in no small part on the participation of talented non-political employees in law enforcement decisions and the other work of the Department. What message does it send to those interested in public service and to the public that the top institution of justice isn't dispensing it at home?

It is time for the Attorney General to follow through on his promise to restore the integrity of the Department. Congress, in turn, should use its oversight powers to ensure that the Attorney General enforces the recommendations contained in the report and that such hiring abuses never occur again. These vital first steps will help guarantee that the Department once again recruits the best and brightest to safeguard our nation's most cherished principles.