Idaho Supreme Court upholds dismissal of legal challenge to state public defense office 

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision Wednesday that a legal challenge to Idaho’s new state public defense system may be dismissed. The ruling upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the case. 

The majority’s decision found there wasn’t enough evidence to demonstrate the statewide system, which began operations in 2024, had similar constitutional concerns of the previous county-based system for defendants in Idaho who couldn’t afford their own legal representation. 

“We recognize that Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the former county‑based and county‑based, state‑assisted systems were plagued by excessive caseloads, inadequate staffing, and improper political and judicial pressures,” Chief Justice Robyn Brody wrote.  “… But that evidence sheds almost no light on whether those shortcomings are likely to persist under the newly implemented state‑based system, thereby warranting prospective injunctive relief. The law requires more than a hunch that the new system will simply reprise the failures of its predecessors.” 

Justices G. Richard Bevan and Gregory Moeller agreed with Brody’s decision. Justices Cynthia Meyer and retired Justice Roger Burdick, who was temporarily filling in for Justice Colleen Zahn, disagreed with the majority. 

The ACLU of Idaho in 2015 filed the lawsuit, arguing Idaho’s then-county-based system for public defense was inadequate and not fulfilling the state’s constitutional obligation to guarantee right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. 

The organization and attorneys from the law firms Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, Wrest Collective, and Ali & Lockwood have since argued that state’s reforms to the system continue to be inadequate. 

“This ruling is a disappointment for the thousands of Idahoans who deserve the chance to properly defend themselves in court,” Legal Director at ACLU of Idaho Paul Carlos Southwick said in a press release. “Every single day, Idahoans are denied their constitutional right to legal representation because of the state’s persistent failure to fix chronic and widespread public defense issues. Idahoans who are accused of a crime are sitting in jail for months without access to a public defender, and some are even showing up to their court hearings without legal representation. We are evaluating the decision to determine next steps in our fight for a constitutional public defense system.”

The ACLU has the option to appeal the decision. 

The Office of the State Public Defender could not be immediately reached for this story. 

What is the lawsuit challenging Idaho’s public defense system about? 

In 2022, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 735, shifting the costs of public defense to the state, rather than having individual counties pay for them. In 2023, the Legislature created the Office of the Public Defender with House Bill 236 to consolidate the state’s public defense system under the state agency. 

In 2024, a district court dismissed the longstanding class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of people who couldn’t afford legal defense. The court ruled that because the state had made moves to fix the deficiencies in the previous system, the case was moot, or resolved. The judge also ordered that the state not return to the county-based system for public defense. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked the state’s high court to reverse the dismissal, rule that the state’s new system was unconstitutional and require the state to fix the alleged deficiencies. The attorneys cited a mass resignation of public defenders upon the initial launch of the new state public defense office. 

The state Supreme Court’s opinion did not weigh in on whether the state’s changes to the system were constitutional or successful. The ruling reflected that it was the Legislature’s place to fix the system, not the court’s, Brody wrote. 

“Our task is narrower,” she wrote. “We hold only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining a return to the troubled county‑based models, and permitting the Idaho Legislature and Executive, rather than the judiciary, to supply the prospective remedy Plaintiffs seek.” 

Two justices disagree, argue the case could still continue 

The dissent, written by Meyer, argued that the issues in the case were potentially still relevant and the case should not be dismissed. 

Meyer wrote that the creation of the new state public defense office didn’t render questions over the adequacy of the legal representation completely moot. 

“… the State’s efforts, while laudable, have not yet been proven to resolve the serious deficiencies identified by appellants in the public defense system,” Meyer said. “… to dismiss a case based on assurances of something different, results in closing the doors to courts of justice prematurely.”