People charged with committing crime may walk free before going to court.

The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, led by Mano Raju, is playing an infuriatingly dangerous game with public safety. In recent weeks, the office has refused to take on new cases, citing staffing shortages—an action that has led the Superior Court to consider the release of defendants. It’s the latest example of the Public Defender’s Office prioritizing political pressure tactics over their core duty: representing indigent defendants and keeping the justice system functioning. Especially in light of threats regarding federal intervention, the stakes have never been higher for us to demonstrate that we are taking crime and disorder seriously.

To understand just how egregious this is, let’s start with the facts. Public Defender Mano Raju has claimed his office is “overwhelmed” because of an influx of what he calls “frivolous and unsubstantiated” cases filed by DA Brooke Jenkins. The Public Defender’s Office is warning that it lacks sufficient staff to handle its caseload and that, as a result, people charged with felonies and other crimes could walk free. However, as District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told KQED in a recent interview: “They didn’t say that in 2019, when the numbers were at their highest, that they were unable to manage their caseloads.”

Also, between 2019 and 2025, the Public Defender’s budget has grown substantially. In FY2019, the office’s budget was $38.8 million—equivalent to $48.9 million when adjusted for inflation. In FY2025–2026, the budget is $58.35 million, marking an almost 50% nominal increase (or 19% after inflation). Meanwhile, the District Attorney’s Office—whose staff handle roughly equivalent caseloads and responsibilities—has seen its budget grow by a comparably smaller percentage over the same timeframe—about 41% nominal and 12% real growth. And the median salary in the Public Defender’s office is $236,000, nearly identical to the DA’s median of $244,000—suggesting the issue isn’t pay or staffing disparity either.

Jenkins has rightly accused Raju’s office of “weaponizing the court system” to squeeze the Mayor’s Office for a budget increase and to show his displeasure with her office’s handling of criminal cases. More facts undermine Raju’s point. The Public Defender’s FY2025–2026 budget actually increased by about $1.65 million (2.9%) compared to the prior fiscal year. So while Raju insists his office is underfunded, the numbers show the opposite: they’re getting more money, handling fewer cases versus previous highs, and still refusing to perform their legally mandated job.

The bottom line? This isn’t a resource problem. It’s a political one. And Public Defender Mano Raju is thinly veiling a brazen attempt to shake down the Mayor for more funding at the expense of public safety at a time when we must be taking public safety seriously. 

The fallout is already being felt. The San Francisco Superior Court, citing a shortage of defense attorneys, has said judges will begin releasing “some indigent criminal pretrial defendants” from jail effective immediately. Judges have stated that since defendants cannot be detained indefinitely without counsel, the only option is to free them. Instead of playing politics to get more funding, the Public Defender’s office needs to focus on its core duties and work with the other arms of the criminal justice system to lessen the backlog of cases.

San Francisco has made real progress reducing crime under Mayor Lurie and DA Jenkins; that progress should not be undermined by one department’s political brinkmanship.