ACLU again challenges Idaho's public defense provision

For the third time since 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho lawsuit challenging the constitutional adequacy of Idaho’s provision of public defense is headed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, known as Tucker v. State of Idaho, was originally filed in 2015 by the ACLU of Idaho, Hogan Lovells, and the National ACLU.

Earlier this month, an Idaho district judge ruled that Idaho cannot revive its existing public defense system, which relies on individual counties — with state assistance — to provide criminal defense attorneys for the many Idahoans who cannot afford an attorney. Despite the district judge’s “serious concerns” over the constitutional adequacy of the current services, the judge dismissed the case and did not order relief to fix the chronic failures.

Rather than providing much-needed relief, ACLU officials felt the judge instead chose to await the development of a newly enacted structure for public defense in Idaho, noting that “time will tell if the state will live up to the promises made or if those are mere empty promises.”

In their appeal of the decision, ACLU officials said that, despite the state’s future promises, indigent people continue to be denied access to constitutional public defense. Organization officials called on Idaho courts to remedy that deficiency.

“The ACLU of Idaho is appealing this case because the need to address Idaho’s disastrous approach to indigent defense is urgent,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho legal director. “In short, Idahoans have a right to adequate representation in Idaho’s court systems, and right now, Idaho cannot come close to guaranteeing that, and that is unacceptable.”

The case was originally brought against the state on behalf of the tens of thousands of Idahoans who cannot afford the full cost of criminal defense lawyers and the other costs necessary to defend against criminal charges.

In the challenge, ACLU officials said deficiencies in Idaho’s under-resourced approach to public defense violate the Sixth Amendment and state constitutional rights to an attorney. Because the state's public defense attorneys are severely overburdened, ACLU officials said they cannot adequately represent all of their clients, resulting in criminal defendants not getting a fair chance to defend themselves.

“The ACLU of Idaho continues to receive complaints about Idaho’s public defense crisis,” said Leo Morales, ACLU of Idaho executive director. “This class-action lawsuit details years of data showing that public defense suffers from widespread, persistent structural deficiencies that undermine Idahoans’ constitutional right to counsel. We have been demanding this wrong be righted in this case for a very long time, and we will not stop pursuing justice until this constitutional right is protected.”

In April 2023, the legislature enacted the State Public Defender Act, which rearranges Idaho’s public defense services so that they will be operated by an Office of the State Public Defender rather than overseen by a State Public Defense Commission. Both leading public defenders and the ACLU of Idaho opposed many of the changes on the grounds that they both failed to remedy existing issues and made some problems worse. 

“While the court’s ruling stated that ‘time will tell’ if these recent changes will remedy longstanding deficiencies as they are implemented, wishful thinking will not secure our clients’ constitutional rights,” Southwick said.