Travis County Sued Over Denying Right to Legal Counsel
AUSTIN, Texas — A on behalf of people jailed without lawyers in Travis County was filed in federal court Wednesday night to affirm the constitutional right to counsel at first appearance.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Travis County requires people who are arrested to attend their first criminal court appearance without providing the constitutional right to a lawyer for people who cannot afford one. At first appearances, which are generally conducted via video from the basement of the jail in downtown Austin, magistrate judges commonly question people about facts related to their alleged crime — including asking about relationships with witnesses and details about alleged incidents that could jeopardize their cases.
The lack of legal representation at first appearances forces individuals to advocate for themselves in precarious and unfamiliar situations. People who cannot afford to pay cash upfront to secure their release are unfairly jailed for days as they wait for an attorney to finally be appointed to them to secure the freedom they may have been entitled to all along. The ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project and the ACLU of Texas have repeatedly urged Travis County officials to institute counsel at first appearance for everyone arrested in the county.
The plaintiff, who is in his late 30s and experiences homelessness, was arrested on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, and booked into Travis County Jail. He requested a court-appointed lawyer, but at the time of filing our lawsuit, one had not been appointed and he remains locked up under a pretrial detention order issued against him, without counsel, at his first appearance. Our client seeks to represent a plaintiff class of all similarly situated detained people at Travis County Jail.
“Communities in Texas and across the country have proven that counsel at first appearance helps fix what is broken in the criminal legal system,” said Trisha Trigilio (she/her), senior staff attorney at the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “Travis County is embarrassing itself with these backward practices when a proven solution is within reach.”
The lawsuit alleges that in recent months, magistrate judges asked people (not the plaintiff) questions that are nearly certain to elicit statements to jeopardize their case like “do you have some good reason for packing heat downtown?” before ordering them to remain in jail.
In March, 37 organizations including the ACLU of Texas calling for immediate action to be taken to provide the constitutional right of counsel at first appearance. The letter, joined by a slate of local advocates, documented blatant unfairness advocates had observed in hearings throughout early 2024.
Following the letter, County Officials have publicly announced , “a sluggish response that follows two years of excuses and delays,” says Trigilio, since the county rejected grant money for counsel at first appearance in April 2022. Less than 1 percent of people arrested in Travis County a year would be helped by the announced program.
“Right now in downtown Austin, people are being forced to participate in criminal court hearings from jail without an attorney there to protect their rights,” said Savannah Kumar (she/they), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “This situation is urgent. Every day that passes without counsel in place at these initial criminal hearings is a day that people are being denied their constitutional right to counsel all while being separated from their loved ones, home, and livelihood.”
“Weil is proud to be partnering with the ACLU on this important matter to improve justice and fairness in the criminal process,” said Jessica Falk, partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.
The ACLU has previously secured court orders requiring counsel at first appearance in , and ; and has asserted similar arguments in litigation pending in Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah.
Access the complaint here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.