Hennepin County, Minnesota prosecutors must now factor race into plea deals under a controversial new policy that legal experts warn may violate constitutional equal protection rights.
Quick Takes
- Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office has implemented a policy requiring prosecutors to consider defendants’ race and age when negotiating plea deals.
- The policy, titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” aims to address unconscious biases but has raised serious constitutional concerns.
- Legal experts suggest the policy may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by explicitly making race a factor in legal decisions.
- The controversial measure follows criticism of Moriarty’s office for offering lenient plea deals in serious cases, including murder cases.
- The policy took effect on April 28 despite mounting legal questions.
Constitutional Concerns Over Race-Based Prosecution
Prosecutors in Hennepin County, Minnesota are now required to consider a defendant’s race when negotiating plea deals, according to a new policy. The mandate, formally titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” was introduced by County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office and has sparked immediate constitutional concerns among legal experts. The policy explicitly directs prosecutors to factor in demographic characteristics including race and age when determining how to resolve criminal cases, a directive that appears to contradict foundational legal principles regarding equal protection under the law.
The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has defended the policy by arguing that race is a necessary consideration because “unconscious biases” have created disparities in the criminal justice system. According to the office’s statement, the goal is to achieve “safe, equitable, and just outcomes” while focusing on victim healing and public safety. However, critics point out that explicitly making race a factor in legal decisions may itself constitute a form of discrimination prohibited by the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, potentially setting the stage for legal challenges once the policy is implemented.
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
Pattern of Controversial Decisions
The race-conscious plea deal policy comes amid growing scrutiny of County Attorney Moriarty’s approach to prosecution. Moriarty, who reportedly received backing from groups connected to George Soros during her campaign, has faced criticism for what some characterize as overly lenient handling of criminal cases. In a recent incident that drew public attention, her office opted for “diversion” rather than criminal charges against a state employee accused of vandalizing multiple Tesla vehicles, raising questions about consistency in the application of justice.
Further controversy has emerged from the office’s handling of more serious crimes. Reports indicate that Moriarty’s prosecutors have offered plea deals to murder defendants that have allowed them to avoid prison time altogether. These decisions have fueled debate about the proper balance between rehabilitation, criminal justice reform, and maintaining public safety standards. Critics argue that such policies, combined with the new race-conscious plea bargaining directive, may prioritize critical race theory over consistent application of the law.
Legal Battles Ahead
Legal experts anticipate that the policy will face significant challenges in court once implemented. The directive appears to create a two-tiered system of justice where similarly situated defendants may receive different treatment based explicitly on their racial background—precisely the type of discrimination that equal protection provisions are designed to prevent. While the policy’s stated intention is to correct historical disparities, the means chosen may not withstand constitutional scrutiny according to several legal scholars familiar with equal protection jurisprudence. Despite these concerns, Moriarty’s office has maintained that the policy represents a necessary step toward addressing systemic inequities in the criminal justice system. The approach reflects broader national debates about how to balance traditional principles of blind justice with efforts to acknowledge and correct historical disparities.
