WASHINGTON, D.C. — Prosecutors Alliance Action released a new report Tuesday warning that escalating efforts to punish, remove, investigate or override elected prosecutors for lawful exercises of discretion represent a growing threat to democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law. The report, unveiled during a congressional briefing on Capitol Hill, argues that attacks on prosecutorial independence have intensified across the country and have now reached the federal level.
The report, Prosecutorial Independence and Democracy: Why It Matters and Why It’s Under Threat, contends that prosecutorial independence is not simply a professional norm but a fundamental democratic safeguard.
According to the report, prosecutors occupy a unique position in government because they possess the authority to decide who is investigated, charged and prosecuted, giving them a critical role in preventing political abuse of the criminal legal system.
“What began as baseless attacks on independent prosecutors — sometimes called progressive prosecutors — has escalated into a crisis for American justice and democracy,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of Prosecutors Alliance Action.
“We are dangerously close to normalizing a system where the rule of law gives way to the rule of whoever holds power. If those in charge can target or remove elected officials simply because they disagree with their decisions, every democratic institution is vulnerable. And once that principle takes hold, no community, no elected official and no constitutional right will be safe,” DeBerry said.
The report argues that independent prosecutors have historically functioned as a firewall against political interference. Because prosecutors can investigate public officials, pursue corruption cases and determine whether criminal laws are enforced, the report states they are among the few institutional actors capable of holding powerful individuals accountable while resisting demands for politically motivated prosecutions.
“American democracy is being eroded, and one of its most important safeguards is being dismantled in plain sight,” the report states. “When prosecutors lose their independence, democracy loses a critical line of defense.”
The report describes a decade-long trend in which mechanisms originally designed to ensure accountability have increasingly been used to punish prosecutors for lawful policy decisions.
Executive suspensions, legislative preemption laws, impeachment efforts, recalls, investigations and budgetary pressure have become tools for challenging prosecutors whose policy choices conflict with those of state or federal political leaders.
The report traces the roots of the conflict to the rise of reform-oriented prosecutors during the 2010s. Prosecutors such as Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Kim Foxx in Cook County, George Gascón in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Marilyn Mosby in Baltimore and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco campaigned on criminal justice reform platforms and introduced policies aimed at reducing incarceration, addressing racial disparities and increasing accountability for police misconduct.
Opposition to those reforms frequently centered on accusations that such prosecutors were “soft on crime.” The authors argue that political actors increasingly sought to limit or override prosecutorial discretion when they disagreed with those policy choices.
“Local prosecutors are elected by their communities to follow the law and make the best decisions for their constituents based on evidence, ethics, and public safety, not political pressure,” said Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, the elected commonwealth’s attorney for Arlington County and the City of Falls Church, Virginia.
“When outside actors try to intimidate prosecutors or override local voters, they are not just attacking one office or policy they disagree with. They are attacking the ability of communities to govern themselves. This is not a partisan issue, it is a democracy issue,” Dehghani-Tafti said.
The report highlights several examples of state-level intervention. In Florida, former Gov. Rick Scott removed State Attorney Aramis Ayala from death penalty cases after she announced she would not seek capital punishment. Later, Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended prosecutors Andrew Warren and Monique Worrell from office, actions the report cites as examples of executive authority being used to override local electoral decisions.
The study also points to legislative actions in states including Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Texas that expanded state authority over local prosecutors. Some measures created disciplinary commissions, while others authorized attorneys general to intervene in local prosecutions or established procedures for removing prosecutors over policy decisions.
According to the report, such interventions represent a significant departure from traditional standards for oversight.
“Legitimate oversight of prosecutors has a clear and historically consistent profile,” the report states. “It is triggered by evidence of criminal misconduct, demonstrated incapacity, or gross deviation from professional norms — not disagreement with policy choices.”
The authors argue that prosecutors derive their legitimacy from democratic elections and that local voters should be able to determine the priorities of their prosecutors through the electoral process.
“When voters elect a prosecutor on a stated policy platform, they are exercising democratic control over the enforcement of criminal law,” the report states. “Undermining a prosecutor’s ability to implement those policies nullifies that democratic choice.”
The report further argues that the decentralized nature of prosecution in the United States was intentionally designed to prevent the concentration of coercive government power. Unlike many other countries, most American chief prosecutors are elected by local voters rather than appointed by state or national officials.
“Prosecutors are not beholden to a governor or a mayor; they are beholden to the public that elects them,” the report states. “Their judge and their jury is democracy itself.”
Beyond state-level conflicts, the report argues that threats to prosecutorial independence have expanded into the federal sphere. The authors contend that political pressure on federal prosecutors has intensified in recent years and cite examples involving presidential pressure on the Department of Justice, the firing of federal prosecutors and investigations targeting local prosecutors.
The report specifically argues that President Donald Trump’s administration has accelerated the politicization of federal law enforcement. It cites instances in which the administration allegedly pressured prosecutors to investigate political opponents, removed officials who resisted political demands and initiated inquiries into locally elected prosecutors.
To support its broader argument, the report references democratic backsliding research showing that scholars have identified numerous indicators of democratic erosion in the United States. The authors contend that prosecutorial independence should be recognized as an additional indicator because prosecutors serve as a critical check against the misuse of state power.
“This is not a story about progressive versus conservative prosecution,” the report states. “It is a story about whether democracy can survive the politicization of law enforcement at every level of government.”
The report also emphasizes that responsibility for the current situation extends beyond a single political party. According to the authors, both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the erosion of prosecutorial independence through actions that normalized political intervention when prosecutors adopted unpopular positions.
“The erosion of prosecutorial independence did not begin as a constitutional catastrophe — it began as a political convenience,” the report states. “What was once aberrational has become systematic.”
To address the problem, Prosecutors Alliance Action proposes a series of reforms aimed at strengthening institutional protections for prosecutors. The recommendations include federal legislation protecting prosecutorial decision-making from political interference, higher standards for removing elected prosecutors, formal guidelines governing state intervention in local prosecutions and increased recognition of prosecutorial independence as a democracy issue rather than solely a criminal justice issue.
The report also calls on journalists, scholars and advocacy organizations to devote greater attention to attacks on prosecutors and to frame those attacks within broader discussions about democratic governance. According to the authors, public understanding of prosecutorial independence remains limited despite its importance to constitutional government.
Ultimately, the report concludes that protecting prosecutorial independence is essential to preserving democratic accountability and preventing the criminal legal system from being weaponized for political purposes.
“Prosecutorial independence is not a professional privilege or a partisan preference,” the report states. “It is a foundational democratic safeguard — essential to the rule of law, the integrity of elections, and the preservation of self-governance.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
