Public Interest

Public Defender Funding Lawsuit Dismissed In Idaho

The state prevailed against the ACLU's legal challenge to chronic underfunding of public defenders. And that's probably bad for the state.

By  
on

handful of moneyThese days there’s a lot going on in the world of public defender funding. Last week I wrote about how the Orleans Public Defenders are now facing a civil rights suit, filed by the Louisiana branch of the ACLU, asserting that the organization violated the Sixth Amendment by refusing clients due to chronic underfunding. This suit is part of a nationwide ACLU campaign aiming to make good on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases. 

I covered another of these ACLU suits way back last June. The facts of that particular suit struck me as egregious, but the complaint nevertheless found itself on the wrong end of an Idaho state judge’s dismissal order a couple weeks ago.

Let’s review. Back in June 2015, the ACLU of Idaho filed a Sixth Amendment-based class action civil rights suit challenging the state of Idaho’s PD system. The complaint was based in part on a 2010 report by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (“NLADA”), which had found “that the state of Idaho fails to provide the level of representation required by our Constitution for those who cannot afford counsel in its criminal and juvenile courts.” The report said the state had “sewn a patchwork quilt of underfunded, inconsistent systems that vary greatly in defining who qualifies for services and in the level of competency of the services rendered.” Ouch.

The ACLU complaint said that the deficiencies NLADA had identified carried over to the present day. It asserted that “in at least six Idaho counties, individual public defenders are responsible for handling more than twice the work that one attorney should ever take on.” It alleged that criminal defendants are often unrepresented at their initial appearances and have very little attorney contact through the remainder of their proceedings. And it claimed that PDs are “unable to investigate… cases in any meaningful way.”

The case seemed like a slam dunk. After all, even Idaho Governor Butch Otter had acknowledged in a speech earlier in 2015 that “the courts have made it clear that our current method of providing legal counsel for indigent criminal defendants does not pass constitutional muster.”

Now, though, the courts have muddied that once-clear picture. The state responded to the ACLU’s suit with a motion to dismiss, arguing that since Idaho has delegated responsibility for indigent criminal defense to its counties, it should be the counties named as defendants — not the state. The ACLU protested that the state’s delegation was really more of an abdication of its responsibilities to criminal defendants.

Ruling on the state’s motion, Idaho 4th District Judge Samuel Hoagland agreed with the ACLU that the state bore ultimate responsibility for its PD system: He wrote that “the governor has a duty to ensure the Constitution and laws are enforced in Idaho,” and that “the governor also has direct supervisory authority over those responsible to establish standards for a constitutionally sound public defense system.”  

Sponsored

But Judge Hoagland nevertheless dismissed the ACLU’s complaint. He seemed troubled by the scope of the suit, saying it asked him to make “speculative assumptions” and “issue blanket orders” regarding the entire PD system based on allegations relating to just four named plaintiffs. And he also suggested that the requested relief — ordering the state to take measures to adequately fund its PD system — would raise separation-of-powers problems.

The ACLU issued a response vowed to appeal, and then quickly made good on its vow, filing its notice of appeal last week. And I’d have to imagine it has a good shot at success on appeal — after all, the complaint is very clear in alleging facts that tie its four named plaintiffs’ situations to systemic failures. (An example: “As a result of the State’s failure to create and enforce a constitutionally consistent scheme that ensures representation for indigent defendants at initial appearances, many defendants, including the named Plaintiffs, are unable to effectively seek bond reduction or release from custody.”) And, last time I checked, the entire point of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act is to allow judges to remedy violations of federal rights — like, say, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel — by state-government actors.

In the meantime, the ACLU’s attorneys are undoubtedly racking up billable hours. I would bet that this recent dismissal order becomes a very expensive victory for the state of Idaho.

Sam Wright is a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart public interest lawyer who has spent his career exclusively in nonprofits and government. If you have ideas, questions, kudos, or complaints about his column or public interest law in general, send him an email at PublicInterestATL@gmail.com.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,