Superior Court ruling brings us one step closer to justice for Maine people
(Stock photo)
In a landmark ruling last Friday, the Kennebec County Superior Court decided in favor of the ACLU of Maine and our clients, ordering the state to uphold the people's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and establish a plan to end our state's ongoing crisis.
The U.S. Constitution requires states to provide attorneys to people who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford their own. In 2019, the Sixth Amendment Center reported that Maine was not meeting its constitutional obligations, and that the situation would only get worse without serious changes. As of early March of this year, nearly 500 people were facing charges but had no attorney. Of those, 111 were incarcerated, locked up at a time when they are legally innocent.
We recognized that this was one of the most important constitutional issues facing Maine's people because it undermines the fundamental principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty and creates a two-tiered system of justice: one for the rich and one for the poor.
Starting in 2019, we worked for three years to convince the state to fix things. That advocacy didn't lead to change, so we took the state to court. On March 1, 2022, we sued the state so people's Sixth Amendment rights would not exist not only on paper, but also in practice.
Three years later, on March 7, 2025, the court ordered the state to develop a plan to guarantee legal assistance for people accused of crimes, starting from when charges are formalized through the end of the case. If the state can't develop and implement a plan, the court is going to order people released from jail and charges dismissed.
This order is a serious remedy designed to address an egregious problem. It's also not a new or radical idea. More than two decades ago, Massachusetts' highest court imposed a similar remedy to address their Sixth Amendment crisis. More recently, an Oregon federal court ordered that people be released from incarceration after seven days without counsel.
Over the course of this case, the ACLU of Maine and volunteer lawyers from Goodwin Procter and Preti Flaherty worked thousands of hours. We spoke to countless people who have spent weeks, months, and even years languishing in jails awaiting legal representation.
We witnessed firsthand what it looks like when the state doesn't uphold the right to counsel. People have lost their jobs and homes, parents have missed their children's birthdays, and others were unable to visit a dying parent. While these members of our communities wait for their day in court, evidence gets lost, witnesses' memories fade, and their case weakens. All the while, prosecutors are bringing the full weight of the state's power against them — in the name of Maine's people — and they have no one by their side.
A fair and transparent process is best for everyone: the accused, victims of crimes, and the public. Our criminal legal system is designed to get to the truth so the innocent can be free and clear their names, victims can seek justice, and the public can stay informed. But none of that can happen unless the accused have an attorney.
As the court noted, 'Plaintiffs in this case have not been convicted of the crimes for which they are charged. Each of them is still presumed to be innocent under the Maine and United States Constitutions. And yet many of them remain in custody, without counsel.' No innocent person should be locked up or dragged through the legal system for months without a lawyer to guide them through the process and advocate for their rights.
This ruling is a significant milestone in the fight for Sixth Amendment rights in Maine, but there's a long way to go. Just as criminal charges are brought by the State of Maine, an enduring solution will require a comprehensive state response from all branches of government.
To start, the Maine Commission on Public Defense Services will file a written plan on April 3, outlining how they intend to provide attorneys to people who cannot afford their own and end this crisis. If people are still denied counsel, courts will begin the process of releasing people from jail and dismissing their charges. (Charges could be brought again once the state can provide an attorney.)
This is a situation that should be intolerable to everyone in Maine, and we fervently hope the court's decision brings us closer to a solution.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Union leader David Huerta faces felony charge after arrest at ICE raid
A prominent California union leader is facing a federal charge after he was arrested on Friday, June 6 during a confrontation with authorities at an immigration raid in downtown Los Angeles. David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California (SEIU), is facing one charge of felony conspiracy to impede an officer after he was arrested by federal officers on Friday, according to court records obtained by USA TODAY. Huerta remained in federal custody until Monday, June 9, when he was released on $50,000 bond, according to multiple reports. Crowds had gathered in downtown Los Angeles to demand for Huerta's release. Federal prosecutors allege that Huerta 'deliberately obstructed' agents from accessing a worksite suspected of employing undocumented immigrants by sitting in front of the business's only entrance gate for vehicles. SEIU California said Huerta was injured as he was detained by police. Following his arrest, Huerta issued a statement calling for people to stand together against injustice. "What happened to me is not about me. This is about something much bigger," Huerta said in a statement obtained by local news stations. "We all collectively have to object to this madness because this is not justice. This is injustice. And we all have to stand on the right side of justice." U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli reaffirmed federal prosecutors' allegations against Huerta in a post on X on Friday. 'Let me be clear: I don't care who you are − if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted. No one has the right to assault, obstruct, or interfere with federal authorities carrying out their duties,' he said. Live updates: Newsom sues over Trump's National Guard deployment in LA; 700 Marines also being sent In a statement to USA TODAY on June 9, April Verrett, International President of the SEIU, demanded Huerta's release. 'SEIU refuses to be silent in the face of these horrific attacks on working communities. Standing in solidarity as a movement of working people is not new to us,' Verrett said. 'We demand David Huerta's immediate release and an end to these abusive workplace raids.' According to ABC 7, State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez condemned Huerta's arrest. "It is such a scary time right now, to watch this happen. I have people like my mom asking me 'If they can come for the president of our entire union so brazenly and attack him in this way then what does that mean for the rest of us?'" Perez said. Huerta's arrest comes as the Trump administration continues to increase measures against anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles for what is expected to last 60 days, according to California's adjutant general. In a social media post, Newsom blamed Trump for the increase in unrest after three days of protests, saying, "we're suing him." 'Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a statement. Contributing: John Bacon, Trevor Hughes and N'dea Yancey-Bragg, USA TODAY Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: California union leader David Huerta faces felony charge, out on bond
