DA Gascón faces an unprecedented legal challenge as career prosecutors within his own office have filed a lawsuit targeting his controversial special directives. The lawsuit centers on policy changes that restrict sentencing enhancements and alter traditional prosecution practices across Los Angeles County. Specifically, prosecutors argue these directives exceed the district attorney's authority and undermine their professional discretion in handling criminal cases. A judge has already issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key directives, creating immediate implications for pending cases and raising broader questions about the balance between progressive reform and prosecutorial independence. This legal battle has drawn national attention to the ongoing debate over criminal justice reform.
The Association of Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles (ADDA) filed a civil lawsuit on December 30, 2020, targeting DA Gascón's recently implemented special directives. The legal action came less than a month after Gascón took office and enacted his reforms on December 7, 2020. The union represents over 750 deputy district attorneys in Los Angeles County and submitted an 18-page complaint seeking a writ of mandate, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
The timing proved significant. Prosecutors faced immediate conflict between their professional obligations and the new directives handed down the day Gascón was sworn into office. Eric Siddall, the union's vice president, described the situation facing Los Angeles prosecutors: "Do we follow our legal and ethical responsibilities and risk getting disciplined, even fired, by our new boss? Or do we follow his policy directives and risk losing our California State Bar cards and, by extension, our ability to practice law anywhere in the state? We're asking a court to answer those questions".
The lawsuit targeted four separate directives issued by Gascón that, according to prosecutors, ignore or violate state law. These directives ordered deputy district attorneys to dismiss pending strike priors, special circumstance enhancements, gang enhancements, firearm allegations, and certain other felony prior enhancements. The directives prohibited the filing of strike prior enhancements in new cases.
Prosecutors built their case around the concept of ministerial duty. The union argued that while an elected district attorney has wide discretion in determining what charges to pursue in individual cases, that discretion does not authorize violation of the law or directing attorneys to violate the law. Michele Hanisee, president of the ADDA, stated this principle directly in the lawsuit's framework.
The core legal argument centered on California's Three Strikes Law. Prosecutors asserted they have a mandatory duty under state law to allege all prior convictions under this statute. "Accordingly, prosecutors have a ministerial duty to allege all prior convictions under the Three Strikes Law. Respondents have refused, and are refusing, to perform this duty". The complaint emphasized that none of these allegations could be dismissed under any circumstances through blanket policy, regardless of evidence or other circumstances.
Attorney David J. Carroll, representing the union, told the court that ordering prosecutors to do things they believe would violate the law as well as their statutory duties puts them in danger of committing ethical violations. He argued it is inappropriate to make deputy district attorneys argue something is unconstitutional when they know it is not.
The union's lawyers highlighted a fundamental issue in their court papers: "The touchstone of prosecutorial discretion is the exercise of case-by-case discretion, which (Gascón's) special directives expressly, intentionally and undisputedly prohibit". This distinction became central to their argument that blanket policies exceeded prosecutorial authority.
Prosecutors also claimed in the lawsuit that Gascón dispatched agents to monitor prosecutors at their hearings to ensure they abide by his directives.
The restraining order sought through the lawsuit asks the judiciary to prohibit Gascón from placing his personally-held views about which laws are or are not good policy above laws enacted by the state legislature and by voters. These laws have been upheld as constitutional by state courts for decades, according to the union's filing.
The filing specifically seeks to force Gascón to rescind his directives. The union wants the court to establish that special circumstance allegations resulting in life sentences without parole cannot be dismissed under the section cited by Gascón's directive. Similarly, dismissals of strike priors must be based on individual circumstances rather than blanket policy.
Criminal charges
can change your life
Three special directives form the foundation of DA Gascón's reform platform, each reshaping different aspects of criminal prosecution. Directive 20-08, issued December 7, 2020, addresses sentencing enhancements that prosecutors traditionally used to lengthen prison terms. The directive prohibits filing any prior-strike enhancements under California's Three Strikes law, including second strikes and strikes from juvenile adjudications. Gang enhancements under the STEP Act, which disproportionately affected communities of color, face dismissal in all cases.
Proposition 8 enhancements adding five years and three-year prior enhancements cannot be used for sentencing. Special circumstance allegations that trigger life without parole sentences must be dismissed or withdrawn from charging documents. Violations of bail or release conditions cannot be filed as part of new offenses. The directive establishes presumptive sentences at the low term for non-probation-eligible offenses, with extraordinary circumstances requiring bureau director approval.
According to Stanford research cited in the directive, sentencing enhancements in San Francisco accounted for one out of every four years served in jail and prison between 2005 and 2017. California's prison population exploded from 23,264 inmates in 1980 to 174,000 by 2006, directly tied to extreme sentencing laws passed in the 1990s. Adults serving sentences with gang enhancements in California prisons were more than 90 percent Black or Latino.
Directive 20-07 transformed misdemeanor case management across Los Angeles County. The policy targets 13 categories of low-level offenses: trespass, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, loitering, resisting arrest, driving without a valid license, driving on a suspended license, drug and paraphernalia possession, minor in possession of alcohol, drinking in public, being under the influence of controlled substances, public intoxication, and loitering to commit prostitution.
Prosecutors declined to file charges in more than 38,000 misdemeanor cases involving these offenses between December 7, 2020 and early November 2021. The charging rate dropped to 13 percent for cases covered by the directive, compared to 89 percent during former District Attorney Jackie Lacey's second term. Over 47 percent of those incarcerated pre-trial on misdemeanor cases suffer from mental illness, while nearly 60 percent have significant substance use disorders. Individuals experiencing homelessness account for almost 20 percent of arrests despite comprising only 1.7 percent of the population.
Directive 20-14 commits the office to reviewing between 20,000 and 30,000 cases where defendants received sentences inconsistent with new policies. The directive prioritizes inmates who served over 15 years, elderly inmates, those at increased COVID-19 risk, and individuals recommended for resentencing by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
DA Gascón eliminated the death penalty in Los Angeles County, calling it racist, morally untenable, and expensive. By January 1, 2021, the office unveiled plans to end cash bail in its entirety, except for defendants accused of violent felonies or sexual assaults.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant issued a preliminary injunction on February 8, 2021, following arguments heard on February 2. The court determined that DA Gascón cannot order his prosecutors to ignore laws that protect the public from repeat offenders. Chalfant's written ruling stated: "The District Attorney's disregard of the Three Strikes law 'plead and prove' requirement is unlawful, as is requiring deputy DA's to seek dismissal of pending sentencing enhancements without a lawful basis".
The judge found that California's Three Strikes law mandates prosecutors must "plead and prove each prior serious or violent felony conviction" of a criminal defendant. Chalfant concluded the law must be applied in every case where the defendant has a prior serious or violent conviction, except in cases where the prior offense cannot be proved. Hence, blanket directives preventing this violated state statute.
Chalfant noted a striking omission in Gascón's legal opposition. "The District Attorney's opposition to [the lawsuit] fails to mention victims, there is not a single reference to a concern for victims in the sentencing process. The first three special directives also fail to mention victims," the judge wrote. The ruling emphasized that special directives require prosecutors to violate California law, their oaths of office, and their ethical and professional obligations.
The preliminary injunction granted relief "in large part" but not entirely. Whereas Gascón could not compel prosecutors to dismiss pending enhancements or ignore Three Strikes requirements, the ruling did not prohibit him from preventing deputies from seeking sentencing enhancements in new cases where not required by the Three Strikes law. Attorney Robert E. Dugdale, representing Gascón's office, clarified: "The judge did not enjoin the D.A.'s policy prohibiting deputy district attorneys from filing most sentencing enhancements in new cases".
The injunction specifically blocked enforcement of directives requiring dismissal of strike priors without lawful basis and special circumstance allegations without individual case review. Following the ruling, DA Gascón issued Special Directive 21-01, which rescinded portions of Special Directive 20-08.1 pursuant to the preliminary injunction.
Prosecutors' discretion was restored for pending cases involving strike priors and special circumstance allegations. Deputy DA Jonathan Hatami, a vocal critic, called the ruling vindication: "For me, personally, to have a judge get up there and say you know what, he was telling you, Jon, and he was telling all those DA's to go into court and do something that was wrong". Eric Siddall, the union's vice president, expressed relief: "One of the problems with Mr. Gascón's directives was it kind of put us in this impossible position of do we follow his directives, or do we follow the law, and the court clearly said well, you need to follow the law".
Gascón announced his office would follow the court's ruling while appealing the injunction order.
The ruling affected 10,794 defendants facing charges with sentencing enhancements in Los Angeles County at the time of the decision. Judge Chalfant barred DA Gascón from ordering prosecutors to dismiss any sentencing enhancements in active cases, unless they can argue insufficient evidence exists to prove the enhancement or that dismissal would be in the interest of justice. Judges had already been blocking dismissal motions on those grounds before Chalfant's ruling.
The preliminary order maintained that enhancements for prior strike offenses must be charged in pending cases, whereas Gascón retained authority to bar prosecutors from filing most sentencing enhancements in new cases. Prosecutors now must charge prior serious or violent felony offenses under the Three Strikes law, following the court's interpretation that such charges cannot be dismissed through blanket policy.
In April 2021, DA Gascón established the Resentencing Unit to address over-incarceration through contemporary laws and policies. The unit, in collaboration with the Murder Resentencing Unit, has reviewed or is actively reviewing 705 cases, resulting in 332 resentencings. The Menendez brothers' case exemplifies the resentencing process. Gascón recommended in October 2024 that Erik and Lyle Menendez be resentenced after approximately 35 years in custody. The recommendation sought removal of their life without parole sentences, making them eligible for parole immediately due to their age at the time of the crimes.
Following the injunction, prosecutors regained discretion in handling cases involving strike priors and special circumstance allegations. Since Gascón modified his blanket prohibition in February 2022, the Juvenile Alternative Charging Committee recommended ten cases for transfer to adult court. The office established a charging committee to determine whether cases merit possible life without parole sentences, granting prosecutors approval to seek that sentence 23 times since February 2022.
Progressive prosecutors have won elections in major cities across the country, challenging traditional law-and-order conventions and intensifying national debate over criminal justice reform. DA Gascón, considered "the godfather" of progressive prosecution, led the nation's largest district attorney's office before losing reelection by 20 points in November 2024. His defeat marked the biggest blow yet to the progressive prosecutor movement, given Los Angeles County's population of nearly 10 million residents exceeds all but 10 states.
Similar outcomes unfolded across the West Coast over two years, with progressive prosecutors losing positions in San Francisco, Oakland's Alameda County, Portland, and Seattle. Chicago's Kim Foxx, elected in 2016 on a progressive platform, noted that swift pushback against DA Gascón showed how opponents of reform had regrouped and emerged more organized. Prosecutors in Philadelphia, Boston, and other large cities implemented comparable reform measures, creating a nationwide movement toward reducing incarceration.
Internal conflict erupted when 20 prosecutors accused DA Gascón of workplace retaliation, alleging he pushed them from leadership positions or into undesirable assignments for challenging his policies. Many suits claimed prosecutors were punished for refusing to implement directives they considered illegal. The California District Attorneys Association took the extraordinary step of joining the lawsuit, breaking precedent by never previously challenging reform-minded prosecutors in court.
Greg Smith, representing most plaintiffs, said the lawsuits addressed prosecutors holding the line against a leader they believed was breaking the law. Eric Siddall argued DA Gascón ignored the law and abused prosecutorial discretion by implementing blanket policies rather than case-by-case decisions.
According to a 2016 Public Policy Institute of California study, just under 80 percent of incarcerated individuals in the state had sentencing enhancements added to their sentences. Nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated without compelling public safety justification. DA Gascón's reforms potentially affected 20,000 currently incarcerated individuals and 10,000 people with active cases before facing significant opposition.
California's prison population exploded from 23,264 inmates in 1980 to 174,000 by 2006, tied directly to extreme sentencing laws [previous section reference]. Communities participating in the Safety and Justice Challenge collectively reduced jail populations by 20 percent, resulting in 15,000 fewer people in jail daily without jeopardizing community safety.
President Biden unveiled a grant program called Accelerating Justice System Reform in August 2022, dedicating $15 billion over 10 years for jurisdictions to implement crime prevention and public health approaches. The Brennan Center proposed a $1 billion federal funding program to reduce unnecessary incarceration, estimating that if 25 states with the largest prison populations reduced imprisonment by 20 percent, 178,000 fewer people would be confined.
Data from communities enacting criminal justice reforms shows no link between reducing jail populations and increasing crime. Research found no correlation between declines in jail incarceration and increases in violent crime through COVID-19. Chicago's Foxx and San Francisco's Boudin said outcomes in Los Angeles could have wide-ranging implications for criminal justice reform nationwide.
The legal battle between DA Gascón and career prosecutors illuminates the fundamental tension between progressive criminal justice reform and prosecutorial independence. Judge Chalfant's preliminary injunction established clear boundaries, ruling that blanket policies violate state law and prosecutorial duties under California's Three Strikes statute. On the other hand, the directive preserved Gascón's authority over new case filings, creating a nuanced framework for reform implementation.
Gascón's subsequent electoral defeat by 20 points in November 2024, alongside similar losses across major West Coast cities, signals significant challenges for the progressive prosecutor movement. As a result, the outcome in Los Angeles County carries substantial weight for criminal justice reform efforts nationwide, potentially reshaping how elected district attorneys balance reform initiatives with legal obligations and public safety concerns.
Protect your record,
protect your future
"*" indicates required fields
