Superior Court ruling brings us one step closer to justice for Maine people
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
Indianapolis Star
2 days ago
- Indianapolis Star
Do ICE detainees have a right to due process? Micah Beckwith's immigration comments go viral
Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said in a now-viral town hall recording this week that ICE detainees at Camp Atterbury do not have a right to due process or to see a judge, and drew a comparison to the United States' response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in World War II. Immigration attorneys say this is patently false and an alarming comparison to make. "He's so absolutely wrong," said Buck Shomo, a longtime immigration attorney in central Indiana. At the town hall in Vigo County on Aug. 4, an attendee asked whether state leaders would make sure immigrant detainees at Camp Atterbury see due process. "So due process in this situation is, are you here legally?" Beckwith, a Republican, responded. When pressed about the opportunity to come before a judge, Beckwith added, "They don't have a right to see a judge." He then asked, "When the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor, did we give them due process?" During that time, Japanese citizens and non-citizens were forcibly taken to internment camps in a move that later presidencies officially declared unjust. President Ronald Reagan signed a law giving reparations to former detainees. Beckwith doubled down on his comments when reached by IndyStar on Aug. 8, reiterating that "constitutional rights don't apply to people who are here illegally." But Beckwith said noncitizens should still be treated with "dignity and respect" "I'm not saying be undignified or treat them with a lack of respect," he said. "But there's a big difference between giving somebody a day in court, paying for a lawyer for them by the people and their tax dollars." The U.S. Constitution grants due-process rights to all "persons" on American soil. There are some circumstances where noncitizens may not see a judge, immigration attorney Sarah Burrow said. For example, if a person had received a removal order in the past and then re-enters unlawfully, ICE can reinstate that removal order without the need for another hearing. There's also a process known as expedited removals. This used to be for people who are found within a certain mile-range of the border and who had only very recently crossed unlawfully. The Trump administration has expanded the application of expedited removals to longer time periods and to any location in the United States, but even so, people placed in this category have the right to request asylum. Outside of those exceptions, removal proceedings must include a hearing, she said. "(Beckwith) is making very clear that he believes if you enter this country unlawfully, then you have no right to due process, and that is patently false," she said. "This is sensationalism, it is playing to the base, it's legally incorrect." Making the comparison to the treatment of the Japanese during World War II is like "saying the quiet part out loud," she said. "So are they ICE detention facilities or are they internment camps? That would be my question," she said. In referencing the Japanese, Beckwith said a reason they didn't get due process is that they invaded the country. To Shomo, this comparison also further demonizes immigrants and seems like a "dog whistle." "To characterize this as an invasion is a cynical way to play on racial fears," he said.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politico
Florida moves toward joining national redistricting push
A spokesperson for state Senate President Ben Albritton did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A new map, depending on how it is drawn, could take aim at the state's remaining Democrats in south Florida such as Reps. Jared Moskowitz or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or Kathy Castor in the Tampa Bay area. Democrats, who have already blasted DeSantis over his calls for a mid-decade map overhaul, reacted furiously to the announcement. 'This is corruption, plain and simple,' said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. 'Drawing district maps is supposed to happen once a decade, after a federal census. Floridians are watching their home insurance rates skyrocket, their rents go up, and their public schools crumble, but instead of fixing any of it, Florida Republicans are too busy with voter suppression schemes in the middle of the decade to protect Trump. This is not normal. Redistricting will cost Floridians millions of taxpayer dollars. We cannot allow this to happen.' Florida voters in 2010 adopted the 'Fair Districts' standards that prohibits the Legislature from drawing districts for partisan gain or to help incumbents. That same constitutional amendment also said that districts could not be drawn in a way that 'diminish' the ability of minorities to 'elect representatives of their choice.' The 2022 map pushed through by DeSantis dismantled a North Florida congressional seat held by former Rep. Al Lawson. Several groups sued over the map and a circuit court judge called it unconstitutional and ordered legislators to redraw it. But the state's high court — which has been remade by DeSantis appointees — concluded last month that Lawson's old district was likely an illegal race-based gerrymander that violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. A majority of justices ruled that legislators had a 'superior' obligation to follow federal law. In his memo, Perez said the ruling 'raises important and distinct questions about the applicability and interpretation of certain provisions of the so-called 'Fair Districts' provisions of the Florida Constitution and their intersection with federal law.' If lawmakers do push ahead with a map, they would still have to follow 'Fair Districts' standards that bar new districts designed solely for partisan gain. Perez said he would not appoint anyone to the select committee who had 'expressed an interest in running for Congress. In addition, while as elected members of the House you are free to express your own opinions, statements about redistricting that suggest an intent to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party, which is currently prohibited by the Florida Constitution, will also disqualify you from consideration.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Key sections of the US Constitution deleted from government's website
Several sections of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution appear to have been removed from the official U.S. government website, as pointed out by sleuths on the internet and as seen by TechCrunch. The changes were made in the past month, according to the Wayback Machine, which shows the full original text on Congress' website as of July 17. Several Reddit threads identified the changes in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Large parts of Section 8 have been removed, and Sections 9 and 10 have been deleted altogether. In the screenshot below, you can see the archived version of the site on the Wayback Machine on the left, and the current site on the right — the text highlighted in yellow has been removed. These sections largely relate to the powers that Congress has and does not have, as well as limitations on the powers of individual states. The removal includes sections relating to habeas corpus, the powers that protect citizens from unlawful detention. Some of the sections' text appears to be missing, as indicated by a trailing semicolon at the end of Section 8, where text used to follow. In a tweet posted on Wednesday, the Library of Congress said the sections were missing 'due to a coding error' and expect it to be 'resolved soon.' When contacted by TechCrunch, a spokesperson for the Library of Congress did not say what caused the coding error, or how it was introduced. Changing the U.S. Constitution's text on the website does not change or have any effect on U.S. law, but it nevertheless follows senior Trump administration official Stephen Miller's threats earlier this year to suspend habeas corpus. When reached by TechCrunch, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle declined to comment beyond the Library of Congress' post. Updated with more details from the Library of Congress, and with a response from the White House. Sign in to access your portfolio
