Following the arrest of Marvin Morales Ortez on the charge of murder a day after he was released from custody by Fairfax County in December,
the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) has requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate the Fairfax County Office of the Commonwealth Attorney (FCOCA) for civil rights violations.
LELDF President Jason Johnson submitted a letter to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillion in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, in which he accused FCOCA, a government authority, of “
a deliberate ‘pattern and practice’ of illegal discrimination on behalf of those based on their immigration status — offering preferential and/or lenient treatment to avoid collateral immigration consequences for the offender.”
Johnson described the policies as “immoral and unlawful” and “systematic discrimination against U.S. citizens to the benefit of those illegally present.”
The letter is dated Dec. 23, 2025, less than a week after Morales Ortez was arrested and charged for allegedly killing his roommate. Since the alleged murder, Morales Ortez has also been charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia with possession of a firearm by an alien illegally present in the U.S. According to the filing by the Eastern District, Morales Ortez has been in the U.S. illegally since Sept. 16, 2016. He was also previously charged with first-degree murder in 2019. It was after those charges were dropped that Morales Ortez was released last month.
“Whether that dismissal was meritorious or not, it shines a bright light on the unlawful, discriminatory policies and practices of the FCOCA,” Johnson writes.
The letter lists several other examples that LELDF believes document FCOCA’s “illegal discriminatory practices and policies based on immigration status” for known gang members, accused killers and rapists. It also singles out Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano, who has served in the position since January 2020. Johnson includes a quote from Descano’s campaign website that said, “Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences,” which is part of a larger section labeled “Protecting Immigrant Communities.”
A representative from Descano’s office declined to offer a comment at this time.
Johnson believes a specific policy of the FCOCA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, citing a policy memorandum dated Dec. 15, 2020, written by the FCOCA. The letter includes a portion that Johnson bolded, reading: “prosecutors shall consider: (i) the collateral immigration consequences of the specific crime(s) the defendant is charged with, and (ii) the detrimental impact that deportation/removal has on the families and communities those removed or deported leave behind.”
Additional text from the memorandum that was also included in the letter, but not bolded, says, “In a case where there is an act of violence and/or great harm done to a victim, the community’s public safety interest in mitigating any future harm will likely outweigh other factors in the analysis. Conversely, where the offense is less serious and there is no identifiable victim, the ACA will have greater latitude in negotiating a resolution that takes adverse immigration consequences into account.”
Johnson notes in the letter that 34 U.S.C. §12601 (“Law Enforcement Consent Decree” statute) has primarily been used to investigate alleged violations by police agencies, but notes there is a precedent for it to be used to investigate district attorneys’ offices. Specifically, in 2012, the DOJ investigated the Missoula County (Montana) Attorney’s Office. Johnson also cited an investigation into the Orange County (California) District Attorney’s office.
As for next steps, Johnson told the Fairfax County Times there is no timeline for the DOJ to review the LELDF’s request. However, if an investigation is initiated and the DOJ determines a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by FCOCA, the most common remedy, per Johnson, is a consent decree demanding future compliance, monitored by an independent monitor at the expense of the affected government entity. He also noted that a subsequent consequence could be an individual with standing bringing their own claim against the Commonwealth’s Attorney, “if they can show individualized harm.”
Democrat Party. The party of Misery, Violence and Hate.
| 
