Hennepin County prosecutor Mary Moriarty has implemented a controversial policy requiring her staff to consider race and age when offering plea deals to defendants, sparking constitutional concerns and debate about equal protection under the law.
Top Takeaways
- Hennepin County prosecutors must now consider defendants’ race and age when negotiating plea deals under a new policy effective April 28.
- Legal experts warn the policy may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by treating defendants differently based on race.
- The prosecutor’s office defends the measure as necessary to address unconscious biases that create racial disparities in the justice system.
- Critics point to Moriarty’s history of lenient plea deals, including diversion programs for vandalism and reduced sentences for murder defendants.
- The policy comes amid ongoing scrutiny of Soros-backed progressive prosecutors and their approaches to criminal justice reform.
New Policy Ignites Constitutional Debate
Prosecutors in Hennepin County, Minnesota are now required to explicitly consider a defendant’s race and age when negotiating plea deals. The new directive, titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” took effect on April 28. County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office developed the policy with the stated goal of addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but legal scholars are raising alarms about its constitutionality.
The policy appears to directly contradict established legal precedent regarding equal protection under the law. By instructing prosecutors to factor in immutable characteristics like race when determining outcomes for criminal cases, critics argue Moriarty has created a system that treats defendants differently based solely on demographic factors. Legal experts warn that such an approach could be challenged and potentially struck down for violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty implements new policy to offer plea deals based on race 🙄
"Racial disparities harm our community… Prosecutors should be identifying and addressing racial disparities at decision points…"https://t.co/QLnmUMRe80
— CrimeWatchMpls (@CrimeWatchMpls) April 29, 2025
Prosecutor Defends Race-Based Approach
Despite constitutional concerns, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office stands firmly behind the new guidelines. In defense of the policy, Moriarty’s office has stated that considering race is necessary because “unconscious biases can contribute to racial disparities.” The directive aims to create what the office describes as “safe, equitable, and just outcomes” while centering on victim healing and maintaining public safety.
Moriarty, who reportedly received backing from groups connected to George Soros during her campaign, has faced mounting criticism for what some characterize as excessively lenient prosecution decisions. The policy comes at a time when Hennepin County residents are increasingly questioning the balance between progressive reform and public safety priorities.
Pattern of Controversial Plea Decisions
The new race-conscious policy follows a series of controversial charging and plea decisions by Moriarty’s office. In a recent case that drew public attention, prosecutors opted for a “diversion” program rather than criminal charges against a state employee accused of vandalizing Tesla vehicles. The decision was perceived by critics as part of a pattern of leniency in prosecution.
More seriously, Moriarty’s office has faced significant criticism for offering plea deals to murder defendants that resulted in no prison time. These decisions have intensified scrutiny of her approach to criminal justice and raised questions about whether progressive policies may prioritize ideological goals over victim advocacy and community safety concerns.
Ideological Divisions and Policy Implementation
Criminal justice reform advocates and traditional law enforcement supporters remain deeply divided on the approach. For many conservatives and legal traditionalists, the solution to any disparities lies in blind application of the law rather than race-conscious remedies that may create new forms of unequal treatment. As the policy takes effect, its implementation and outcomes will likely face legal challenges and intense scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum.
