After More Than Five Years of Litigation, Lexington County, S.C., Agrees to Dramatically Increase Funding for Indigent Defense
COLUMBIA, S.C. — After years of recalcitrance, the Lexington County Council voted Tuesday to approve a settlement agreement that will dramatically improve the quality and availability of public defense services for individuals facing prosecution in the Lexington County Magistrate Courts.
The settlement is the result of litigation brought in 2017 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of South Carolina, and the Terrell Marshall Law Group, which exposed that Lexington County — like many counties across South Carolina — was routinely prosecuting, sentencing, and jailing indigent South Carolinians without providing access to legal representation as required by the landmark Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright.
The agreement — which now moves on to the federal court for final approval — marks a transformational win for people facing misdemeanor and traffic charges who are unable to afford a lawyer, as well as for criminal justice advocates who have long pointed to the state’s magistrate and municipal courts as sites of rampant constitutional violations.
“It is truly terrifying to face the Magistrate Court system without having an attorney who can explain the law and make sure your rights are protected,” said Sasha Darby, a plaintiff in the case. “The changes in this settlement are a long time coming, and I am so happy that this means more people will have meaningful access to counsel.”
The county’s decision to settle the lawsuit comes on the heels of a legal ruling by The Honorable Sherrie A. Lydon, federal judge for the District of South Carolina, who concluded in August that Lexington County “has engaged in policies, procedures, and customs that cause systemic deficiencies in funding, staffing and assignment of cases to public defenders with the result that indigent people in the [Lexington County Magistrate Courts] are deprived of court-appointed counsel.”
As recently as 2013, Lexington County did not have a single public defender assigned to represent criminal defendants in its magistrate courts. Access to a public defender continues to be woefully deficient.
Under the newly-approved settlement agreement, the county must provide its circuit public defender with enough funding to hire and retain six attorneys, one paralegal, one investigator, one administrative assistant, and one social worker. These positions will be exclusively assigned to the Lexington County magistrate courts, and the county must continue its funding for these positions in each and every subsequent year.
The following statements can be attributed as noted:
Allen Chaney, legal director, ACLU of South Carolina
“I am so proud of our plaintiffs and litigation team. After five years of relentless effort, it is extremely gratifying to achieve such a comprehensive and long-lasting victory.”
Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group
“The United States Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the government must provide a public defender to any person who faces the possibility of jail for a criminal charge or unpaid court debt. This settlement puts an infrastructure in place for Lexington County to finally meet that obligation.”
Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney, ACLU’s Racial Justice Program
“For years, Lexington County’s policies have systematically violated the constitutional right to counsel of people prosecuted in its Magistrate Courts. This settlement is a huge step toward ensuring that people navigating this legal process that can have life-altering outcomes will have access to the representation to which they are entitled.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Statement on House AI Task Force ReportACLU Statement on House AI Task Force Report
WASHINGTON — Today, the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) issued its final report, marking an important step in recognizing the serious risks of discrimination and bias posed by AI systems — particularly in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology. The report recognizes that discrimination and bias may arise in AI systems due to their design, training data, or failures by end users. The report also investigates the complex considerations around deepfakes, open AI systems, and free speech, and urges Congress to pass narrow legislation to address concrete harms. In response to the House AI Task Force final report, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: “The ACLU commends the Task Force for recognizing that AI systems are harming people right now through discriminatory outcomes and supercharged surveillance. Curbing those abuses of AI is not a partisan issue, and more concrete action is needed to protect civil rights, while maintaining states’ authority to build on those protections. The Task Force is appropriately cautious when wrestling with issues around deepfakes, open-source AI, digital identity, and other issues, recognizing that legislators should consider a wide array of tailored tools to address real, not speculative, harms while respecting civil rights and civil liberties.” The House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report can be found here. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key ProtectionsACLU Warns that Biden-Harris Administration Rules on AI in National Security Lack Key Protections
WASHINGTON — The Biden-Harris administration today released its National Security Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence (AI), establishing guidelines for how the U.S. government uses AI in national security programs, such as counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and defense. The use of AI to automate and expand national security activities poses some of the greatest dangers to people’s lives and civil liberties. Agencies are increasingly exploring the use of AI in decisions about who to surveil, who to stop and search at the airport, who to add to government watchlists, and even who is a military target. While the government’s policy includes some important steps forward — such as requiring national security agencies to better track and assess their AI systems for risks and prohibiting a subset of dangerous AI uses — it falls far short in other critical areas, leaving glaring gaps with respect to independent oversight, transparency, notice, and redress. The policy imposes few substantive safeguards on a wide range of AI-driven activities, by and large allowing agencies to decide for themselves how to mitigate the risks posed by national security systems that have immense consequences for people’s lives and rights. As we have repeatedly seen before, this is a recipe for dangerous technologies to proliferate in secret. “Despite acknowledging the considerable risks of AI, this policy does not go nearly far enough to protect us from dangerous and unaccountable AI systems. National security agencies must not be left to police themselves as they increasingly subject people in the United States to powerful new technologies,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “If developing national security AI systems is an urgent priority for the country, then adopting critical rights and privacy safeguards is just as urgent. Without transparency, independent oversight, and built-in mechanisms for individuals to obtain accountability when AI systems err or fail, the policy’s safeguards are inadequate and place our civil rights and civil liberties at risk.” For years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been urging far stronger safeguards and transparency about the AI tools that national security agencies are deploying, the rules constraining their use, and the dangers these systems pose to fairness, privacy, and due process. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Racial Justice
ACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and VendorsACLU Comment on the Department of Labor’s AI Guidelines for Employers and Vendors
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released a roadmap for artificial intelligence (AI) best practices, designed to ensure that emerging technologies such as AI enhance job quality, benefit workers, and comply with existing employment laws when they are used in the workplace. The best practices, pursuant to President Biden’s executive order on the development and use of AI, include recommendations for AI system developers and employers that prioritize workers’ experiences and empowerment throughout the entire AI lifecycle – from design to use and oversight. These practices also call on employers and developers to create standards and processes to identify and mitigate risks from AI systems, such as threats to health and safety, civil rights, privacy, fair labor rights, and labor organizing prior to a developer marketing them or an employer deploying them, and recommend turning to different systems when sufficient mitigation is not possible. “We applaud DOL for issuing best practices for use of AI that center workers’ empowerment, civil rights, privacy, and safety protections and call on developers and employers to adopt critical guardrails in developing, procuring and using AI systems. Employers and developers should take note, as many have been burying their heads in the sand on their risk of legal liability with respect to AI tools,” said Olga Akselrod, senior staff attorney of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Following these best practices for AI can help employers and developers ensure that they do not violate existing civil rights and other employment laws that protect workers.” The best practices also recommend transparency measures through conducting and publishing impact assessments, notice and recourse for impacted workers, and measures to minimize worker displacement. The DOL also stated that employers should minimize electronic monitoring and avoid unnecessary collection or retention of worker data.