The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California has hauled Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen into court, alleging his office is sitting on detailed, case-level racial and charging records needed to spot discriminatory prosecution. The lawsuit requests that a judge order the release of the documents and rule that the office has violated the California Public Records Act. County attorneys counter that the request sweeps in private investigative material. The fight is now parked in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
ACLU Files Suit
As reported by Palo Alto Daily Post, the ACLU filed the suit on Oct. 29, seeking demographic records for every person charged since 2015: arrest details, charging decisions, bail and plea offers, diversion referrals, and which prosecutor handled the case. The complaint says the DA’s public dashboard and one-off data drops don’t cut it; case-level detail is required to test whether race affects who gets charged and how.
Numbers the ACLU Points To
The group has assembled county-specific Racial Justice Act resources and datasets, it says, that reveal disparities by race and gender. Those uploads, such as charge breakdowns by race and gender and related spreadsheets, are attached to the complaint and, according to the ACLU, show Latino and Black residents bearing a disproportionate share of felony prosecutions. The ACLU’s Santa Clara RJA page hosts the same documents and data.
DA’s Response And Dashboard
Rosen’s office points to de-identified, aggregate numbers it already publishes and an open data dashboard tracking prosecutorial metrics. The county’s public portal houses the datasets the DA cites, and local reporting covered a small “race-blind” charging study the office ran with outside partners. See the Santa Clara County Data Portal and reporting from KTVU for the DA’s materials and that internal study.
Racial Justice Act Context
California’s Racial Justice Act, enacted in 2020, aims to identify and address racial disparities in charging and sentencing by enabling statistical and case-level reviews. That promise hinges in part on access to the kind of raw records the ACLU requested, records that advocates say are needed to test whether similarly situated defendants are treated equally. For background on the RJA and implementation hurdles, see CalMatters.
Legal Stakes And Precedent
The ACLU seeks a court ruling that the DA violated the Public Records Act; county lawyers, led by County Counsel Tony LoPresti, argue that much of what’s sought is exempt as investigative records or attorney work product. That tug-of-war mirrors recent fights elsewhere: in Orange County, ACLU litigation resulted in a judge ordering the release of prosecutorial records after resistance from the DA. See the ACLU of Southern California’s account of that ruling and reporting in the Palo Alto Daily Post for local coverage of the Santa Clara suit.
What Comes Next
The suit remains pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court. If a judge orders release, it could open access to case-level records that researchers, defense attorneys, and community groups would use to examine whether charging practices produce disparities. The ACLU says it brought the case to ensure the Racial Justice Act is more than a promise, while county officials say they’ll defend privacy and privileged materials in court. Court locations and contact information are available from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and the ACLU’s Santa Clara RJA page hosts the documents and datasets it has assembled.
