At the moment, observers seem to be scrambling to make sense of Garland’s decision-making, and it remains to be seen whether the decision in Carroll’s case might finally force a more serious reckoning. Shortly before Monday’s filing, one commentator questioned “to what lengths the Justice Department will go to defend the Trump administration’s abuse of power—with its primary concern being preserving that power for the Biden administration and beyond.” Another concluded on Tuesday that Garland “seemingly has no plans to become the anti-Barr.” Others have argued that “at this point, Garland himself is beyond saving.” I wouldn’t go that far, except to say that Garland’s decisions seem to reflect a far too cramped view of what people have taken to calling “institutionalism.” The department, for instance, generally defends federal employees in lawsuits where there is a defensible claim that the employees’ actions occurred in the course of their work; it generally takes expansive positions on questions of executive authority and power; and if you resort to a high enough level of abstraction—like, say, “speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern”—it is often possible to argue that a decision in some particular instance should be placed in the lineage of broadly defined principles. A former judge who likes to invoke the rule of law may be particularly susceptible to these tendencies, since the concept is often associated with stability and impartiality. The question that Garland has now placed front and center for even his most ardent supporters is whether and to what extent he will at some point identify a serious limit to this way of thinking when it comes to Trump—a truly dangerous man and former president who should not be afforded the continued luxury of being treated like any other federal official.