Frequently Asked Questions About ACLU-PA's Indigent Defense Lawsuit

1. Each branch of government has acknowledged the system is in crisis through various reports at some point over the past 20+ years, yet have continuously failed to address it. 
    
2. Kuren v. Luzerne, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case decided in 2016, gave us a direct pathway to holding the commonwealth to its constitutional obligation to fund public defense. We knew a statewide lawsuit was the next step because the commonwealth bears the ultimate responsibility to ensure the right to counsel.
    
3. In looking at other states that have attempted similar litigation, it was the leverage of a large scale lawsuit that helped amass the political will necessary to make reform possible. 
    
4. Of course, we would have liked to file this sooner, but cases of this size take time to investigate and prepare. We agree the timing is interesting because of the legislation that was recently passed, but we believe more still needs to be done to ensure a lasting commitment to fixing the problem they created.

1. For decades, public defenders and appointed counsel have been forced to work under untenable conditions with high caseloads that far exceed national workload standards. This has led to widespread attorney burnout and devastating consequences to hundreds of thousand people every year. 
    
2. Excluding the Defender Association of Philadelphia, which is exempt from the Public Defender Act, Pennsylvania is tied with Mississippi for the lowest funded state indigent defense system on a per capita basis.

1. The legislature and the governor are in a position of power to fix this problem, but have failed to do anything until very recently, and the money allocated by the governor for indigent defense is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed to adequately fund public defenders.
    
2. We need a court ruling that compels the legislature and governor to continue to address this crisis regardless of the shifting in political winds.

1. Both the legislature and the governor have separately said this initial funding was a first step. Any attempt by the legislature or governor to take away the funding they prided themselves on allocating would be proof we need a court decision to ensure they continue to do the right thing.

1. Allocating only $7.5 million in both 2023 and 2024 shows a failure to grasp the scale of the problem. 
    
2. Bringing Pennsylvania in line with the national average per-capita of $19.82, would mean the state would have to allocate at least $100 million in additional funding for indigent defense services, assuming counties also continue to keep up their level of funding. 
    
3. Conversely, for Pennsylvania’s per capita indigent defense spending to approximate Michigan’ spending, a state which experts have described as most comparable to Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth would need to provide an additional $250 million in funding.
    
4. Ultimately, the amount of funding should reflect the amount needed to bring each county up to an adequate standard of practice that considers the caseload of each office and complexity of cases being handled. When we consider the standards of practice indigent defense systems should include, we often look at the ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System.

1. Not only is the right to effective criminal defense required by the US and Pennsylvania’s Constitution, it is foundational to our system of government. When everyone, regardless of income, has access to quality criminal defense, we ensure that the criminal legal system operates on principles of fairness and equity, not wealth or privilege. A strong indigent defense system protects against government overreach and provides accountability to the system. Beyond the direct benefits, a well-resourced indigent defense system can alleviate the financial and societal costs of mass incarceration while also strengthening community safety by ensuring cases are resolved swiftly yet fairly. 

1. Ultimately, the commonwealth is responsible. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, mandates that states provide adequate legal defense to indigent individuals in criminal cases. The legal case that enshrined the right to counsel is Gideon v. Wainwright.

1. We are alleging that Pennsylvania’s system of indigent defense is so underfunded and under-resourced that it has led to systemic and widespread violations of the right to effective assistance of counsel. Essentially, the system is so broken that indigent individuals are being constructively denied counsel even if a person receives court appointed counsel.
    
2. We are also alleging that because Pennsylvania’s system has led to vast county-level disparities in funding that indigent individuals are being denied their right to be treated equally under the law.

1. The petitioners include 17 named individuals from nine different counties. We have asked the Commonwealth Court to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which means the named plaintiffs would bring the lawsuit on behalf of a larger group of people referred to as the class. 
    
2. The class of people our petitioners represent are all indigent individuals who are now facing, or will in the future face, criminal charges that include the possibility of confinement and who qualify for appointed representation.

1. A legal win would result in the Commonwealth Court holding the state responsible for ensuring indigent people receive effective criminal defense representation no matter the county in which they are charged. Fortunately, the legislature does not need to wait for a court decision to address this crisis.
    
2. A policy win would result in the commonwealth providing adequate funding and oversight to our state’s indigent defense system so that counties can provide effective and robust representation to all clients who qualify. Again, the state legislature does not need to wait for a court decision to pass legislation to fund indigent defense.

1. Well-funded indigent defense can have transformative impacts on criminal defendants, particularly those who have faced cycles of poverty and frequent interactions with the criminal legal system. With sufficient resources, public defenders can advocate for alternatives to incarceration that focus on rehabilitation, such as substance use disorder treatment, mental health support, and job training programs. By addressing these underlying challenges, defendants have a greater chance of stabilizing their lives, avoiding future arrests, and building sustainable livelihoods. This support helps break generational cycles of poverty and involvement in the legal system, offering a chance for families and communities to thrive without the repeated disruptions and disadvantages associated with incarceration. For the next generation, this means more stability, greater opportunity, and a stronger foundation for success.

1. With improved funding, public defender offices can reduce caseloads and hire more staff, allowing attorneys to devote more time to each client and better meet the demands of complex cases. Increased resources also give defenders access to essential support services like investigators and social workers, helping them build stronger cases. Additionally, regular training and professional development enhance defenders’ skills and ensure that they are equipped with the latest knowledge to advocate effectively.
    
2. Better compensation and benefits improve job satisfaction, attract new talent, and reduce turnover, allowing offices to retain experienced defenders. A healthier work environment with reduced burnout and lower stress also enables defenders to sustain long careers in public defense. Ultimately, these changes strengthen defenders’ credibility, enhance their job satisfaction, and foster greater trust in the justice system, creating a fairer balance between prosecution and defense.

When the state increases funding for public defense, counties can reduce their expenses by cutting costs associated with pre-trial detention and jail overcrowding. This financial relief allows counties to reinvest in local programs that promote community safety, such as mental health services, substance use treatment, and housing support. With better-funded public defenders advocating for alternatives to incarceration, counties benefit from a more efficient court system, fewer repeat offenses, and stronger community trust, creating a safer, more balanced approach to justice.

1. Yes, the case could be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but we are hopeful that if we win in the Commonwealth Court that the legislature will choose to do the right thing and fix the problem. Fortunately, even if the case is appealed,  the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already decided a very similar case in which the court recognized a prospective cause of action for indigent criminal defendants to allege systemic and widespread violations of the right to counsel due to chronic underfunding. That case is Kuren v. Luzerne County.

1. Simply taking this time to get more informed and familiar with the issue is a great start to getting involved. Increasing your awareness on the issue is one of the best ways advocates can help build support for a better indigent defense system. Here are a few other ways to help support and bring awareness to the issue of indigent defense. Also check back for links to upcoming events:
    
   1. You can follow along as the case progress at www.aclupa.org/defenders.
   2. You can attend county or municipal meetings where budgets are discussed and advocate for allocating more resources to indigent defense.

Reports 

• 2003 PA Supreme Court Committee's Report on Racial Gender Bias (including public defense)
• 2011 Joint State Government Commission (JSGC) Report on Services to Indigent Criminal Defendants
• 2021 LBFC Report on Pennsylvania Indigent Criminal Defense Services Funding and Caseloads
•  “Under-resourced and Ignored: Indigent Defense in Schuylkill County”—The Wren Collective
• A Job Left Undone: Allegheny County’s Fork in the Road (2011)

Case Law

• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)—6th Amendment right to counsel applies to states
• In Re Gault (1967)—Expanded 6th Amendment to juvenile delinquency proceedings
• United States v. Cronic (1984)—US Supreme Court case on the 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal cases
• Kuren v. Luzerne (2016)—PA Supreme Court landmark decision on indigent defense

Other Helpful Websites

• Sixth Amendment Center
• Indigent Defense Advisory Committee