Please, No “General Attorney General”

In today’s Supreme Court oral arguments over Texas SB8 anti-abortion law, I think Solicitor General Prelogar was great.

But can we please call her “Solicitor General Prelogar” or “SG Prelogar” and not “General Prelogar”? I’ve seen much commentary today using the term “General” in this way. Calling AGs or SGs “General” was likely a mid 20thC drift toward the militarization of domestic law enforcement

See Michael Herz, “Washington, Patton, Schwarzkopf and…Ashcroft?” 19 Constitutional Commentary 661 (2002). “The practice of calling the AG & the SG ‘General’ should be abandoned… flatly incorrect by the standards of history, grammar, lexicology, and protocol.”

“The misuse of ‘general’ predates the recent uptitling epidemic, and the term is more than simply grandiose. There is no escaping its military connotations. Almost all generals are found in the Army (or Air Force, or Marines). Most people are slightly confused the first time they hear the AG or SG referred to as “General” precisely because the term’s primary meaning and its primary association are military. My guess is that the misuse of “general” is not only confusing for this reason, but attractive.
This cannot be proven, of course. But the military feel of
the term is so strong that it is hard to believe that its appeal is
independent of that feel. People are reassured, or impressed, by
having a general around. The adversary system, litigation “battles,” the common understanding of litigation as a kind of warfare, all these make the idea of putting a general in charge comfortable.
This impulse might be all the stronger since the September
11 attacks and the start of a “war on terrorism” in which the Department of Justice is a central player. In fact, President Bush
has half-jokingly referred to Ashcroft as a military general on
more than one occasion since September 11.”

“To call civil officials “general” because that word appears in
their title is incorrect by the standards of grammar, history, and
protocol. It is also a little silly. And it is at odds with important
values… [S]tick with attorneys and solicitors in the Department of Justice, and
leave the generals in the army.”

Garrett Epps notes today, “In 1971 I wrote a profile of Archibald Cox that said that his military bearing and commanding air led his colleagues to call him ‘the general.’ Later I found out it was because he’d been Solicitor General.”

Author: Jed Shugerman

Jed Handelsman Shugerman is a Professor at Fordham Law School. He received his B.A., J.D., and Ph.D. (History) from Yale. His book, The People’s Courts (Harvard 2012), traces the rise of judicial elections, judicial review, and the influence of money and parties in American courts. It is based on his dissertation that won the 2009 ASLH’s Cromwell Prize. He is co-author of amicus briefs on the history of presidential power, the Emoluments Clauses, the Appointments Clause, the First Amendment rights of elected judges, and the due process problems of elected judges in death penalty cases. He is currently working on two books on the history of executive power and prosecution in America. The first is tentatively titled “A Faithful President: The Founders v. the Unitary Executive,” questioning the textual and historical evidence for the theory of unchecked and unbalanced presidential power. This book draws on his articles “Vesting” (Stanford Law Review forthcoming 2022), “Removal of Context” (Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 2022), a co-authored “Faithful Execution and Article II” (Harvard Law Review 2019 with Andrew Kent and Ethan Leib), “The Indecisions of 1789” (forthcoming Penn. Law Review), and “The Creation of the Department of Justice,” (Stanford Law Review 2014). The second book project is “The Rise of the Prosecutor Politicians: Race, War, and Mass Incarceration,” focusing on California Governor Earl Warren, his presidential running mate Thomas Dewey, the Kennedys, World War II and the Cold War, the war on crime, the growth of prosecutorial power, and its emergence as a stepping stone to electoral power for ambitious politicians in the mid-twentieth century.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: