Four district attorneys in Georgia have filed a lawsuit challenging a new law that creates a commission to discipline and remove state prosecutors. They argue that the law violates the U.S. and Georgia constitutions. The lawsuit, filed in Fulton County Superior Court, comes after Republicans passed the law earlier this year. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, stated that the law would address what he called far-left prosecutors who he believes are making communities less safe.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Sherry Boston, the district attorney in DeKalb County, an Atlanta suburb with a predominantly Democratic population. Boston emphasized that the issue is not limited to Georgia, but rather concerns prosecutorial discretion and independence, both of which she believes have been under attack in recent years.
This legal challenge is part of a broader pushback against progressive prosecutors who have chosen not to prosecute certain crimes, such as marijuana possession, and have sought to reduce lengthy prison sentences. Republicans nationwide have campaigned on anti-crime platforms, accusing Democrats of being soft on criminals. Similar efforts to rein in prosecutors have taken place in Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The Georgia law raises questions about prosecutorial discretion, a key principle of the American judicial system. Prosecutors have traditionally had the authority to decide which cases to pursue, what charges to bring, and the severity of sentences sought. The district attorneys challenging the law argue that it oversteps by requiring them to review every case individually and prohibits them from establishing policies rejecting the prosecution of certain categories of crimes.
According to the lawsuit, the duty to review every case infringes on the separation of powers outlined in the Georgia Constitution, which designates district attorneys as part of the state’s judicial branch. The legal action also claims that this duty would force prosecutors to spend time examining minor offenses, diverting resources from more serious cases.
Additionally, the lawsuit argues that the ban on establishing policies against prosecuting certain offenses would oblige district attorneys to consider prosecuting crimes such as adultery, sodomy, and fornication, which most prosecutors ordinarily would not pursue. It could also compel them to consider prosecuting individuals for small amounts of marijuana possession, even though the Georgia Bureau of Investigation refuses to test such quantities.
The plaintiffs contend that the ban on stated policies creates a bias in favor of prosecution and limits prosecutorial discretion. They argue that it interferes with their constitutional free speech rights by inhibiting their ability to discuss their prosecutorial philosophy with voters.
The law is already facing legal obstacles in some states. A Tennessee law that allowed the state attorney general to intervene in death penalty cases was recently struck down for unconstitutionally limiting the power of locally elected district attorneys. However, in Florida, the state Supreme Court ruled against an attempt by a State Attorney to be reinstated, stating that they had waited too long to make the request.
This legal challenge in Georgia raises important questions about prosecutorial discretion and the independence of those who hold such positions. It is part of a broader trend where efforts are being made to rein in progressive prosecutors. However, critics argue that these moves may undermine the principles of the American judicial system and restrict the ability of prosecutors to pursue justice effectively. The outcome of this case could have implications not only for Georgia but for the larger national conversation surrounding criminal justice reform.
Governor Brian Kemp’s office has yet to comment on the lawsuit.
