The federal government should not interfere with local prosecutors

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into a state prosecutor’s office—not for breaking the law, but for how the law is applied. This should concern anyone who believes in local control and limited government.

In Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty directed her team to consider race and age during plea negotiations. The policy’s stated purpose is to address racial disparities and account for youths’ still-developing brains—and although Moriarty emphasized that those factors alone do not justify departing from sentencing guidelines, the DOJ claims the policy might violate civil rights law.

Hennepin County voters chose Moriarty based on her priority issues, which include addressing racial disparities and promoting age-appropriate solutions, so they are the ones who should hold her accountable. Federal intervention should only happen where there is overwhelming evidence of intentional wrongdoing, and that is not the case here—disagreement with a prosecutor’s policies is not the same as a civil rights violation. If anything, this feels more like an expedition hoping to find a misstep rather than proof of a legitimate issue.

When a community elects a local prosecutor, they choose more than just a public official—they choose a philosophy on justice. That choice should be respected, even when Washington disagrees. The DOJ’s actions are not about one Minnesota county or even a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy; they are about federal authorities trying to override decisions made by local voters. In other words, the heavy hand of the federal government is being used to threaten locally elected prosecutors across the country with whom the administration disagrees.

Prosecutorial discretion gives local prosecutors the authority to make judgment calls on charges, plea deals, and sentencing based on the facts of each individual case. It is an important safeguard to ensure the system stays human and avoids bureaucracy. Voters choose local officials who reflect their community’s values and needs, so when the federal government steps in to dictate that process, it is not oversight—it is overreach.

One foundational principle of our justice system is that race should not determine outcomes. But choosing not to see race does not mean race plays no role. Disparities are real. Black and Hispanic defendants often face higher bail, more severe charges, and longer sentences than white defendants in comparable situations. Similar patterns exist among socioeconomic classes. However, recognizing disparities is not the same as creating them—and asking prosecutors to be aware of those patterns is an act of accountability, not racism.

Even for those wary of DEI-type policies, the real danger of the DOJ’s actions is a precedent to undermine local control. If federal agencies start targeting locally elected prosecutors over policy disagreements, the message will become clear: Conform or be targeted. It will discourage good-faith efforts to fix local problems. Prosecutors may abandon efforts to solve long-standing problems—not because their ideas are flawed, but because they fear becoming the next target. Even if people agree with this move today, what happens when the next administration uses the same playbook on a different issue?

Prosecutorial discretion needs oversight, of course, but the proper oversight is local. Consider the 2022 recall of Chesa Boudin or the replacement of several “progressive prosecutors” last year. If a prosecutor loses the confidence of the people, voters can make a change. That is democracy. In fact, conservatives have long supported local control over one-size-fits-all federal mandates.

Weaponizing the DOJ against local prosecutors sends a chilling message that if someone deviates from the ideologies of the current administration, they will be punished—both quickly and publicly—within the very justice system they were elected to uphold. Justice should serve the people, not the party in power.

Few believe that race should dictate outcomes, but federal overreach is not the answer. Our justice system is not perfect, and prosecutorial discretion is necessary to ensure it remains impartial and balanced. Robbing prosecutors of the ability to use their judgment renders justice merely another federal program to be gutted and stripped of accountability.