Trending
A state appeals court is allowing a lawsuit challenging the state's method of funding public defenders to move forward.
The Commonwealth Court shot down requests by the governor and legislative leaders to toss the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Funding for public defenders comes from county governments, creating wide disparities across the state.
ACLU attorneys said that based on the decision released Sept. 21, the case will now continue moving forward, though it could be brought to a close if the state would simply allocate more funding for public defenders.
"I think we all agree that this is a fundamental right. We don't question whether or not we should have emergency services come if there is a 911 call," attorney Ari Shapell said at a Wednesday media event hosted by the ACLU in Philadelphia. "If somebody needs access to an attorney, there shouldn't be a question as to whether or not that attorney is able and available to represent them."
According to the lawsuit, which names Gov. Josh Shapiro and leaders of the General Assembly as defendants, Pennsylvania's indigent defense system leaves more than 100,000 Pennsylvanians who can't afford to pay for a lawyer without effective assistance of counsel every year.
Until 2023, Pennsylvania along with South Dakota, were the only states that didn't provide any funding for public defenders. The state budget that year added $7.5 million for indigent defense. The amount has remained unchanged in the budgets since then. Each county receives between $184,000 and $295,000, money state officials say is intended to supplement, not replace, support from county governments.
By relying on counties to fund the bulk of the cost of public defenders, defendants who are arrested in wealthier counties have greater access to indigent defense than those in poorer parts of the state, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asks the court to find that Pennsylvania's reliance on county funding and oversight for indigent defense is a violation of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
Legislative leaders and the governor's office had argued that they have the authority to determine how to spend state funds and that it should not be up to the courts to tell them what to do. They also argued that the lawsuit should have been filed against the counties rather than the state.
Attorneys representing Senate President Pro Tem Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland, compared the lawsuit to a recent school funding case in which the courts found that the state was illegally shortchanging students in less wealthy school districts. However, there is a key distinction between school funding and indigent defense, they said. The state Constitution explicitly says that the state is required to "provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education" but there is no similar constitutional requirement mandating funding for public defenders.
However, the judges pointed to a prior case in Luzerne County in which the courts concluded that defendants could sue due to "systematic, widespread constructive denial of counsel" based on inadequate funding.