State’s Public Defense Overhaul Faces Judicial Scrutiny
The Idaho Supreme Court is considering whether recent legislative reforms to the state’s public defense system satisfy constitutional standards for providing legal representation to those unable to afford it. The hearing stems from the long-running lawsuit Tucker v. Carlson, originally filed in 2015.
Attorneys representing indigent defendants argued that despite the transition to a centralized, state-funded public defense agency, constitutional shortcomings remain. They asked the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of the case earlier this year.
Background: Legislative Reforms Since 2022
In response to criticism and legal pressure, Idaho passed key legislation to overhaul its fragmented county-based system:
- House Bill 735 (2022): Shifted funding responsibilities for public defense from counties to the state.
- House Bill 236 (2023): Dissolved the Public Defense Commission and created the Office of the State Public Defender, now fully operational as of October 2024.
State attorneys argue that these reforms directly address the original complaints and represent significant progress toward meeting constitutional standards.
ACLU: Reforms Haven’t Fixed Core Problems
Lawyers from the ACLU of Idaho and Hogan Lovells LLP countered that despite the systemic changes, real-world deficiencies persist. They noted that dozens of public defenders resigned following the reforms, leaving communities without adequate coverage.
Court documents submitted in December 2024 include examples of defendants appearing in court multiple times without legal counsel, despite repeated outreach to the new state agency. As of August 2025, the Office of the Public Defender reported 21 unfilled positions, including new roles mandated to expand access in Jerome, Shoshone, Benewah, and Elmore counties.
“The issues are still occurring in courtrooms across Idaho,” said attorney Joe Cavanaugh, who urged the court to mandate a comprehensive compliance plan.
Debate Over Timing and Evidence
State attorneys contend it’s too early to determine whether the new model is effective. “At this stage, nobody can say whether the system suffers from widespread, persistent structural defects,” said Joe Aldridge, counsel for the state.
Justice Gregory Moeller noted that the court must assess whether current data is sufficient to determine the system’s constitutionality or if further time and evidence are required.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to:
- Declare Idaho’s current public defense system unconstitutional
- Require the state to submit a corrective action plan
- Appoint an independent monitor to oversee implementation
Next Steps
The Idaho Supreme Court did not issue a ruling immediately following oral arguments. A decision in the coming months could determine whether the state must make further changes or whether the recent reforms will be upheld as constitutionally sufficient.
Related Coverage
- Idaho News – https://idahonews.co/idaho-news-3/
About the Author
