NACDL - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Suit to declare Colorado statute 16-7-301(4) unconstitutional as it requires an indigent accused to speak with the prosecutor before the court would consider appointing counsel.

June 2011,State Court (Skagit County), Def.removed to Federal Court (WD WA)

Closed, ruling in favor of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs alleged the two municipalities (Burlington and Mt. Vernon) through their failure to adequately fund and monitor the contracts used to provide public defense services, systematically denied indigent defendants their right to counsel under the federal and state constitutions.

The District Court found indigent defendants were systematically deprived of the assistance of counsel through the municipalities’ deliberate choices regarding funding, contracting, and monitoring of their public defense systems. The Court recognized having counsel present is not sufficient, clients are entitled to a meaningful relationship with their attorney.

Assert violation of state and federal constitution causing constructive denial of counsel because defenders have an excessive caseload which bars their providing meaningful representation. Allegations include failure to adequately fund and monitor public defense services in the county.

Mar. 2017 State Court (removed by Defendants to federal court WD MO)

Allegation of actual and constructive denial of the right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from chronic underfunding and excessive caseloads. Includes allegations of inadequate training and supervision, excessive delays and pretrial detention, and uncounseled pleas.
*Case name changed from Church v. State to Dalton v. Barrett, when court ruled Church lacked standing to proceed and State was dismissed as a named defendant)

June 2017 Federal Court (D. SC)

Class action alleging that Lexington County and its officials implemented two unwritten administrative policies—the “default payment” policy and the “trial in absentia” policy—that led to the unconstitutional arrest and incarceration of indigent individuals for failure to pay fines and fees. The plaintiffs argued that these policies violate their Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

While the suit was pending, the SC Supreme Court issued a memorandum to magistrate judges addressing these practices. The County moved for summary judgment, asserting, among other claims, the Court’s memo mooted the issue. The Motion was denied. The County appealed that ruling, to the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 4th Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that because the district court’s denial of summary judgment was based on the existence of genuine issues of material fact—rather than a purely legal question—it did not satisfy the collateral order doctrine, which allows immediate appeals only for conclusive legal determinations. The court emphasized that further factual development through discovery was necessary before determining whether the defendants were entitled to immunity. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 5, 2021, defining the class as all indigent individuals owing fines or fees in Lexington County magistrate court and appointing the ACLU and others as class counsel. On August 22, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment while granting in part the defendants’ motion, dismissing most injunctive claims under the Younger abstention doctrine and granting judicial immunity to two judges. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ due process and Fourth Amendment claims, limited their Sixth Amendment damages claim to nominal relief, and found the Lexington County Sheriff not liable for detaining individuals on facially valid warrants. After the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims, the parties reached a settlement in which Lexington County agreed to fund six new public defense positions and pay attorneys’ fees, leading the plaintiffs to withdraw their appeal. The court granted final approval of the class action settlement on March 9, 2023, and later awarded the plaintiffs nearly $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

View full case materials 

Filed on March 1, 2022; pending in Superior Court of Kennebec County

Whether the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services (MCILS) violated the Sixth Amendment by failing to provide adequate counsel to eligible indigent defendants.

The court granted the case class-action status in July 2022, allowing our clients to represent a class of thousands of indigent defendants in Maine who are entitled to court-appointed counsel.In July 2022, the ACLU of Maine filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of indigent defendants who were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The court granted class-action status, allowing the case to represent thousands of affected individuals. The state attempted to dismiss the case, but the court rejected the motion, permitting pre-trial discovery.

By Fall 2023, the situation had worsened, with thousands lacking adequate legal assistance and hundreds receiving no attorney at all. In response, the court denied a proposed settlement in March 2024 and ordered litigation to proceed in two phases. The first phase would determine whether the state had failed to provide counsel, and the second phase would examine systemic failures in oversight, training, and support.

In Fall 2024, the ACLU of Maine filed a motion for summary judgment on November 22, arguing that the evidence was clear enough for a ruling without a trial. The motion contended that the state's ongoing failure to provide counsel was an undeniable violation of constitutional rights.

On January 3, 2025, the Kennebec County Superior Court ruled that Maine was violating the Sixth Amendment by failing to provide attorneys to those who could not afford them. The court emphasized that the state had an obligation to ensure continuous legal representation from the moment charges were filed through all stages of the criminal process.

A bench trial was held from January 22-25, 2025, to determine appropriate remedies. The ACLU of Maine proposed several measures, including requiring MCPDS to provide counsel at all stages of criminal proceedings and submitting a plan within 30 days to comply with Sixth Amendment obligations. Additionally, they sought a court order to release detainees who had been denied counsel for more than seven days and to dismiss charges if no attorney was appointed within 45 days.

On March 7, 2025, the court issued a landmark ruling ordering the state to take immediate action to remedy the crisis. It found that MCPDS had failed to provide legally required representation and mandated that the agency submit a plan by April 3 to ensure continuous legal counsel. The ruling also required the state to end illegal pretrial detention for defendants held without counsel for more than 14 days and to dismiss cases where no lawyer was provided within 60 days. The crisis remains dire.

As of January 2025, nearly 1,000 cases in Maine lacked legal representation, and hundreds of people remained jailed without an attorney. The court's ruling aims to bring systemic reform and protect the constitutional rights of indigent defendants. A hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025, for the state to respond to the court’s orders.

View full case materials 

Filed on July 27, 2023, Oregon Supreme Court via Mandamus Petition

The public defenders argue that they are unable to meet the standards of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and the constitutional rights of their clients due to the sheer volume of cases they are assigned and therefore sought to stop Marion County judges from forcing public defenders to take on new cases at the expense of existing client rights.

Oregon Supreme Court heard oral arguments on September 19, 2023 over whether trial courts can force defense attorneys to take new clients when they already have too many cases. The judges argue they have an obligation to protect a defendant’s rights by appointing an attorney. Following oral arguments the Public Defender for Marion County Stepped down potentially mooting the case. The Oregon still has the case under advisement and has not issued a ruling.

View full case materials 

2023, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (appealed to the Ninth Circuit)

Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on May 31, 2024

Indigent defendants incarcerated without legal representation due to a shortage of public defenders. Allegations of Sixth Amendment violations, including prolonged pretrial detention without counsel and systemic deficiencies in Oregon's public defense system. The case challenged the state's failure to provide timely legal representation.

District Court (2023): Judge Michael McShane granted habeas relief, ordering the release of indigent defendants who were not assigned counsel within seven days.

Ninth Circuit (May 31, 2024): Affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that Oregon's public defense crisis amounted to a "Sixth Amendment nightmare" and violated defendants' constitutional rights. The court ruled that the state must provide counsel within seven days or release the defendants.