San Francisco’s lead public defender is escalating a rare institutional clash with the city’s Superior Court by continuing to refuse certain criminal cases, even after a judge held him in contempt for doing so, a standoff that illuminates deep strains in the city’s justice system.
Manohar Raju, who has served as San Francisco’s public defender since 2019, has refused to accept all criminal case referrals from the Superior Court since May 2025, citing overwhelming caseloads and inadequate staffing. His office’s actions have drawn a rare contempt ruling from Judge Harry Dorfman, drawing sharp disagreement over fundamental responsibilities and constitutional duties in the city’s courts.
Raju’s office began periodically turning down a limited number of cases, most often felony referrals once a week and misdemeanor referrals twice a week, after concluding that its staff were handling unsustainable workloads. According to court filings, deputy public defenders were averaging roughly 60 felony cases and 135 misdemeanor matters each, far above national workload standards that recommend far lower limits to ensure quality representation.
Superior Court authorities responded by ordering the office in January to stop declining cases. The judge concluded that the defense office had “available attorneys” and should fulfill its obligation to represent all indigent defendants. But Raju’s office continued declining select assignments, arguing that doing so was necessary to protect defendants’ constitutional rights to competent legal counsel.
In a decision this month, Judge Dorfman found Raju in contempt of court for willfully disregarding his order. Though contempt findings are uncommon in disputes between public defenders and judges, Dorfman said he has a duty to manage courtroom business and appoint counsel where the law requires it. He stopped short of sanctioning Raju financially for now, indicating that further proceedings would determine any penalties.
Raju has refused to back down. In interviews with the Chronicle, he framed the dispute not as defiance of the judiciary, but as adherence to ethical obligations. “It is critical that leadership in our office stand up for ethical caseloads,” he said, noting messages of support pouring in from law professors, defenders across California, and civil rights organizations who view the public defender’s stance as an effort to safeguard effective representation.
His attorney, Kory DeClark, argued in court filings that Raju, not judges, is better positioned to assess his office’s capacity and that refusing cases under extreme strain is a constitutional imperative, not a dereliction of duty.
The dispute has wider implications for San Francisco’s criminal justice system. At stake is the balance between constitutional guarantees, such as the right to counsel, and the practical limits of a public agency strained by budgetary constraints, rising arrests, and increased court demands. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and other legal officials have criticized the refusal policy as an abdication of legal duty, while defenders say overloads make competent defense impossible.
As Raju appeals the contempt finding, the public defender’s office is negotiating with the mayor’s office for additional funding and staffing, and coordinating with private attorneys to cover referrals. But the broader conflict underscores an ongoing nationwide debate over public defense resources and the constitutional rights of the accused in an overburdened system.
