DeSantis Says He Would Use Justice Department To Bring Civil Rights Cases Against 'Soros-Funded Prosecutors'
DeSantis has already removed two reform prosecutors from office in Florida. A federal judge ruled he violated the First Amendment in one of those cases.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested at Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate that he would use the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to bring cases against progressive prosecutors.
"I will use the Justice Department to bring civil rights cases against all of those left-wing Soros-funded prosecutors," DeSantis said during a segment on law enforcement. "We're not going to let them get away with it anymore. We want to reverse this country's decline. We need to choose law and order over rioting and disorder."
DeSantis has a particular penchant for going after reform-minded prosecutors. As Florida governor, he removed two elected state attorneys in Tampa and Orlando for alleged neglect of duty.
DeSantis announced in a press conference last August, flanked by local law enforcement, that he was suspending Andrew Warren, the Tampa-area state attorney, after Warren signed letters saying he would not enforce state laws restricting abortion or transition-related medical care for transgender minors. The suspension order also cited other policies to avoid prosecutions for certain low-level offenses.
And this August, DeSantis suspended Monique Worrell, an Orlando-area state attorney, under similar justifications.
It's unclear what civil rights charges DeSantis thinks he could bring against district attorneys, who already enjoy absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for actions related to their jobs. But he has shown that he's open to stretching the limits of his power to achieve his political goals.
A federal judge ruled in January that DeSantis violated the First Amendment and the Florida Constitution when he suspended Warren, although the judge also found that the court did not have the authority to reinstate the prosecutor.
"In short, the controlling motivations for the suspension were the interest in bringing down a reform prosecutor—a prosecutor whose performance did not match the Governor's law-and-order agenda—and the political benefit that would result," U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida Robert Hinkle wrote in his order. "The actual facts—whether Mr. Warren actually had any blanket nonprosecution policies—did not matter. All that was needed was a pretext to justify the suspension under the Florida Constitution."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"In short, the controlling motivations for the suspension were the interest in bringing down a reform prosecutor—a prosecutor whose performance did not match the Governor's law-and-order agenda—and the political benefit that would result," U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida Robert Hinkle wrote in his order. "The actual facts—whether Mr. Warren actually had any blanket nonprosecution policies—did not matter. All that was needed was a pretext to justify the suspension under the Florida Constitution."
Another day, another dumb-as-a-plank judge out there yearning for a woodchipper.
"I will use the Justice Department to bring civil rights cases against all of those left-wing Soros-funded prosecutors,"
Sounds good to me. Those fascists have been pissing all over the constitution for everyone except violent criminals.
Indeed. This is all great news. Except to the writers at Reason.
So it’s clear where Reason writers stand on states rights regarding medically mutilating kiddos due to gender confusion.
What is the Libertarian position? Or do I not want to know?
Would you call that child abuse or malpractice?
Notice that TFA doesn't discuss the legalities of any of this, only the "morality" of going after prosecutors who choose to prosecute the political opposition instead of repeat, irredeemable, social justice criminals.
And the fact of the matter is that crowbarring these assholes out of their seat IS a civil rights issue--it's tied to the rights of business owners and ordinary citizens to be able to go about their day without the constant worry of being shoplifted and getting criminal charges for defending their property, or even walking down the street without having to worry that they're going to get robbed or killed for any random reason whatsoever by these criminal predators. The policies of Soros DAs are a direct violation of safety and trust at both the public and individual level, and thus any pretext to force them out of office should be pursued, irrespective of whether it hurts some marxist judge's feelings or not.
Also, the first thing any Republican President should do on taking office is get the DoJ to file racketeering and treason charges against Soros, his kid, and all of his organizations, freeze their assets and dissolve their organizations, kick them out of the country, put them on a private plane to wherever they want to go, and shoot the plane down about 15 minutes after it takes off.
RRWP for president! 😀
Nor does it discuss that these state attorney's were elected by the people of their county and that Desantis replaced them with hand picked cronies. BUT that is not as important as being 'tough on crime' and the party of 'law and order' with 91 count Trump as the party's standard bearer.
If it hurts your side, it's automatically good.
You don't seem sarcastic, which worries me because there aren't two sides in this fight.
Weaponzing the Justice Dept. was bad when Obama and Holder were doing it, and I don't support Rs doing it either.
Well, it isn’t as good as putting them in maximum security, or lethal injections. But it’s a start.
It's unclear what civil rights charges DeSantis thinks he could bring against district attorneys, who already enjoy absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for actions related to their jobs. But he has shown that he's open to stretching the limits of his power to achieve his political goals.
As opposed to DA’s (and judges) stretching the the limits of their power to achieve political goals.
Thanks! https://claspo.io/blog/how-to-get-sales-on-shopify-10-steps/
Warren's defense that, essentially, '(some) public officials have a 1A right to shit on the Constitution and their oath of office' is practically begging to have the speaker shot in the head.
And, if my invocations of shooting people in the head offends you, maybe think a little harder about your whole "Public officials have a Constitutionally-protected right to violate the oath and duty of their office." position.
Worth noting, once again, that Kim Davis wouldn't sign *marriage licenses* for *one county* in Kentucky and was *jailed* for it.
Was she jailed for that or for being found in contempt for defying a court order? Because they are not the same thing.
Not so when we’re referring to the 1st Amendment.
Just learned about Carter indicting a bunch of FBI guys while almost simultaneously commuting the sentences of the Weather Underground, SLA, and KALN terrorists those FBI guys had been hunting. Some children of those very terrorists have become said soros backed DAs.
There is a long precedent of this and we are a little too far along that road to claim that it’s a novel danger to liberty now. You really seem to be trying to slap the ball out of the hands of the team trying to fight back.
It’s clear that blue pilled libertarians don’t have the stomach for the measures that will likely need to be taken to punch this neo-commie slide this country has taken in the nose.
I don’t know the answer. I understand the fears. But pretending it’s not a problem isn’t working. Even if you take it out of the government sphere, I don’t know why you think everyone’s going to wake up tomorrow with hyper reasonable libertarian instincts towards the rule of law, when you can’t even be bothered with fighting back against a cultural revolution in the market place of ideas.
Just learned about Carter indicting a bunch of FBI guys while almost simultaneously commuting the sentences of the Weather Underground, SLA, and KALN terrorists those FBI guys had been hunting.
That's because the FBI fucked up and was using warrantless wiretaps to get intel. Obviously Carter probably would have let the terrorists off the hook anyway, but unfortunately the FBI gave him the pretext to do so.
Ayers and Dorhn in particular should have been shot on the courthouse steps.
Agreed. The black bag shit sunk them. And probably rightly so in some grand scheme. But how else do you fight the underground?
In the 40s we had the luxury of a guy like Whittaker Chambers coming forward. Currently reading “Witness” and it’s melting my face off. Especially since half of it takes place in Maryland and I know some of the addresses.
Agreed. The black bag shit sunk them. And probably rightly so in some grand scheme. But how else do you fight the underground?
I get what you're saying here, but these guys were violent, treasonous domestic terrorists who had plotted to kill people, bombed government property, and stated openly that their purpose was to overthrow the US for some dumb marxist utopia. Shopping for a sympathetic judge to give them warrants should have been a piece of cake, and that includes the commies in the National Lawyers Guild who were subsidizing and supporting them in their activities.
They still use warrantless taps. Nothing has changed. Maybe we shouldn't have been in Vietnam.
The list:
https://capitalresearch.org/article/living-room-pundits-updated-guide-to-soros-district-attorneys/
"One in particular, in my home state of LA, got my attention:
James Stewart—Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Probably the least well-known and least radical Soros-funded DA, James Stewart was elected as the DA of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in 2015 with the help of more than $930,000 in funding from Soros."
Caddo Parish encompasses Shreveport, an area of just under 240,000. And yet his "Democracy PAC" infused just under a million in this local race. No matter what I've read of his being the most significant donor to Democratic races, I still have no clear understanding of what his goal is for doing this, other than to completely undermine and reinvent the US political system and create a country that places no obstacles on immigration and does not prosecute common criminals.
If anyone else has any actual insight, I'd love to hear it.
I though money was speech. Are we going to prohibit billionaires from donating to whoever they want?
I am not questioning Citizens United here [an entirely different matter, though certainly related]; my question concerns what the fuck motivates Soros [given his and others freedom to do so] to inject hundreds of millions into US elections, especially at the local [DA] level.
Soros made his fortune as a currency speculator. I often wonder how much he stands to make if the US dollar collapses.
Well, good for DeSantis. Want drugs to be legal? Want to end prosecutor shenanigans? Want to ensure everyone accused gets a fair trial? So do I. Push for those things. Want to go easy on people who have violated the rights of others and been duly convicted? Think that "mass incarceration" is in and of itself a problem? No.
Funny how when you say "rrform" you only ever mean " pro-criminal, marxist priorities", sorry but those of us living in those communities need our rights considered too. That you've been pro-J6 prosecution for protesting and fawning over the BLM riots, murders, arsonc and actual insurrection (remember the seizing of US territory and declaring CHAZ independent) tells me where your priorities are.
Cocktail parties; it's not like they can invite themselves.
And in the bigger picture, when did "prosecutorial discretion" become a thing?
Prosecutors across the spectrum from Podunk to NW DC need to be reined in and compelled to follow the law. An example of overt wrongdoing is the handling of the Biden and Trump classified docs cases.
When mandatory minimum became a thing.
I think the next Republican administration should set up and EPA-like agency that fines cities millions for having too much crime.
Warren isn't back in office because it was a legit removal. Warren's job was to enforce state laws and he said he wouldn't. That's not merely a first amendment issue.