Appeals court allows ACLU challenge on public defender system to go forward

A Michigan Court of Appeals in Ingham County has rejected a claim of immunity by the state of Michigan and allowed a challenge filed by the ACLU on behalf of a class of indigent defendants against the state’s public defender system to go to trial. The court’s full ruling can be read here (PDF).

The case, Duncan et al v State of Michigan, is a class action suit alleging that the state’s public defender system is organized and funded so inadequately that it constitutes a violation of both the federal and state constitutions by denying to indigent defendants the right to competent and effective counsel.

The state government offered a series of arguments urging the court to dismiss the case without ever considering its merits, including arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit, that the wrong parties were being sued because state law delegates control of the public defender system to the county governments, and that the state government has immunity from such suits.

The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the government on all of those procedural motions to dismiss the case. The government then appealed that ruling and the court of appeals has now affirmed the lower court ruling and ordered the case to move forward, with a full trial on the merits of the case.

Both the district court and the appeals court flatly rejected the government’s claim of immunity from civil liability in the case. While the state government is immune to certain types of tort litigation, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly that, “Where it is alleged that the state, by virtue of custom or policy, has violated a right conferred by the Michigan Constitution, governmental immunity is not available in a state court action.”

Because the state constitution is binding on the state government, no state government action that violates the constitution can be considered immune from legal challenge. The appeals court was adamant that where there is a constitutional violation, a challenge in the courts is not only the proper way but the only way that such a violation can be addressed:

For state and federal constitutional provisions to have any meaning, we may and must engage in this role even where litigation encompasses conduct by the executive and legislative branches. We cannot accept the proposition that the constitutional
rights of our citizens, even those accused of crimes and too poor to afford counsel, are not deserving and worthy of any protection by the judiciary in a situation where the executive and legislative branches fail to comply with constitutional mandates and abdicate their constitutional responsibilities, either intentionally or neglectfully. If not the courts, then whom…But if a chosen path taken by the executive and legislative branches in an effort to satisfy their constitutional obligations allegedly fails to meet minimum constitutional requirements, the judiciary must examine the allegations and adjudicate the dispute. The judiciary by so intervening is not acting with a lack of judicial modesty or in violation of separation of powers; it is acting in accordance with its constitutional
obligations, duties, and oaths of office.

The court cannot order the state government to spend more money directly to fix the problem, nor can it, at least initially, issue an injunction against the government. What the plaintiffs are seeking is a declaratory ruling “compelling the State and Governor to provide indigent defendants representation consistent with the state and federal constitutions.”

Such an order would not require specific action on the part of the legislature or the governor, it would allow them to determine the best means of achieving that goal. But it would set the standards that must be met in order to meet the constitutional obligation. The court has not ordered any of those things yet, of course, as this ruling only allows the case to go forward. But if the plaintiffs win the trial on the merits, that is the relief they seek and would likely get.

As the Messenger has reported in the past, recent studies have shown the public defender system in Michigan to be in a virtual shambles, with overworked and underfunded public defenders having as little as 30 minutes to devote to each defendant. In Wayne County, for example, the handful of public defenders they have handle an average of 2,400 to 2,800 cases per year, many times more than the national standard of 400 cases per year.