Since 2022, Idaho’s public defense system has undergone major overhaul, according to BOISE (Idaho Capital Sun). The state Supreme Court will now consider whether the modifications are sufficient to demonstrate that the state is fulfilling its constitutional duty to give proper representation or whether it is too soon to make a determination.
In front of the state’s supreme court in Boise on Friday, lawyers for poor defendants—those accused of a crime but unable to afford their own legal counsel—argued that the state is still failing to comply with its constitutional obligation even with a completely different system.
Attorneys for the ACLU of Idaho and the law firm Hogan Lovells are contesting the state’s system, and on Friday they requested that the Idaho Supreme Court overturn a February District Court dismissal of the case, Tucker v. Carlson.
Attorney for Hogan Lovells Joe Cavanaugh told the judges, “We have never asked for a specific model of public defense; what we have asked for is that the state implement public defense in a way that passes constitutional muster.”
The state contended that the reforms that unified a disjointed, county-based public defense system into a state-funded Office of the Public Defender are precisely what the plaintiffs and courts had been requesting in the case when it was filed ten years prior.
The problems brought up in this lawsuit have been resolved by the new state system. Joe Aldridge, a lawyer from Scanlan Griffiths + Aldridge who represented the state, stated that it’s actually that easy.
RELATED | The ACLU challenges the new public defense system in an emergency move.
Idaho has overhauled its public defense system. The ACLU says it s not enough.
According to the Idaho Capital Sun, the ACLU of Idaho contended in its December appeal to the state’s highest court that the state reforms may have made matters worse because they were followed by a mass resignation of public defenders around the state.
According to Office of the State Public Defender spokesperson Patrick Orr, as of Friday, the office had 21 public defender openings, including new positions created by 2025 legislation to open four new offices in Jerome, Shoshone, Benewah, and Elmore counties.
The initial 2015 filing of the case, which argued that Idaho’s system was insufficient to ensure people’s access to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, served as the impetus for the modifications implemented thus far.
House Bill 735, approved by the Legislature in 2022, mandated that the state, not the counties, pay for all public defense. House Bill 236 was passed by the Legislature in 2023 to establish the Office of the Public Defender as a new state institution in place of the Public Defense Commission.
In October 2024, the new public defender office made a complete switch to the new system.
In court on Friday, Cavanaugh contended that the revisions haven’t improved the situation in terms of low-income people’s access to quality legal representation. Legislative changes, he claimed, do not absolve the courts of upholding the Constitution.
He claimed that the Legislature had its chance and had failed at it. These problems are taking place in the very backyard of the judiciary.
The action asks the court to rule that the public defense system in the state of Idaho is unconstitutional and to impose an injunction on the state, compelling it to develop a plan to address the claimed flaws and restore the system to constitutionality. In addition, the plaintiffs request that the court examine and authorize the plan and designate an impartial observer to oversee its execution.
Idaho judges consider if the evidence can demonstrate whether the new method is constitutional.
RELATED | After a public defender departure, questions have been raised over Idaho’s new public defense system.
Idaho justices mull if available data can show new system is or isn t constitutional
Several justices asked Cavanaugh how the court could assess the state’s system’s current level of sufficiency using the information in the December 2024 petition concerning the system’s purported flaws.
According to Justice Gregory Moeller, “it just feels like the ground has changed so much that you would almost have to start over.”
According to the Sun, written testimony from defendants and attorneys in the December complaint details instances where defendants repeatedly appear in court without an attorney present, even after numerous attempts to get in touch with the state public defense office.
According to Cavanaugh, the data provided examined the problem statewide and was not specific to any one system.
Aldridge, speaking for the state, stated that while it was premature to conclude that the new system was sufficient, it fulfilled its duty by establishing a system intended to support constitutionally sound indigent defense.
Moeller questioned Aldridge about the state’s ability to demonstrate the notable advancements produced by the new system.
It’s just too early to determine whether the new state structure has broad, long-lasting fundamental flaws at this point in time, he said.
According to Aldridge, the new funding and supervision structure was intended to be the cutting edge, gold standard, but it would likely take a few years before enough cases passed through the system to be able to assess its accuracy.
The email address: [email protected] >[email protected] is the href.
