The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two of the most highly anticipated cases of this term, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Many believe these cases could result in the end of both California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, and perhaps, sweeping national marriage rights for same-sex couples. Embedded in these cases, however, are extremely important constitutional questions relating to standing and scrutiny that may impact the broader LGBT community as well as future cases before the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, March 13, 2013, the American Constitution Society held a thought-provoking panel discussion about the future of marriage equality.
Introduction:
Charlie Salem, Managing Director, Public Policy, Microsoft; Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society; and Dipal Shah, Director of Policy Development and Programming, American Constitution Society
Panel Discussion featured:
- Walter Dellinger, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP; former acting U.S. Solicitor General
- Suzanne Goldberg, Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, Columbia Law School
- Paul Smith, Partner, Jenner & Block
On Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy hosted “Considering Gideon at 50: The History and Future of Indigent Defense.”
In the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” It was this unanimous decision, in an opinion authored by Justice Hugo Black, that gave true meaning to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, 50 years after this landmark decision, this country has fallen short of what is required of it by the Constitution. Three-quarters of the public defender’s offices in the country have caseloads which exceed recommended caseload standards. Some defenders are handling 500 felony cases per year when the American Bar Association advises they handle no more than 150. In some jurisdictions, prosecuting attorney offices’ budgets are three times those of public defender offices’. And in the midst of state budget crises, some offices have been forced to fire defenders. How far have we strayed from the Supreme Court’s intent in Gideon? Have the Supreme Court’s right to counsel cases over the past 50 years been in the spirit of Gideon? What was the historical, constitutional, and legal context in which the Supreme Court reached its unanimous decision in Gideon? How do we respond to the contemporary indigent defense crisis? Panelists discussed these and other questions throughout the symposium.
Symposium featured: Deborah Leff, Acting Senior Counselor, U.S. Department of Justice Access to Justice Initiative
On Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy hosted “Considering Gideon at 50: The History and Future of Indigent Defense.” In the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” It was this unanimous decision, in an opinion authored by Justice Hugo Black, that gave true meaning to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, 50 years after this landmark decision, this country has fallen short of what is required of it by the Constitution. Three-quarters of the public defender’s offices in the country have caseloads which exceed recommended caseload standards. Some defenders are handling 500 felony cases per year when the American Bar Association advises they handle no more than 150. In some jurisdictions, prosecuting attorney offices’ budgets are three times those of public defender offices’. And in the midst of state budget crises, some offices have been forced to fire defenders.
How far have we strayed from the Supreme Court’s intent in Gideon? Have the Supreme Court’s right to counsel cases over the past 50 years been in the spirit of Gideon? What was the historical, constitutional, and legal context in which the Supreme Court reached its unanimous decision in Gideon? How do we respond to the contemporary indigent defense crisis? Panelists discussed these and other questions throughout the symposium.
Introductory Remarks (10:00 a.m.):
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
Symposium featured:
A Conversation with Gideon Supreme Court Clerks, Litigators, and Scholars (10:10 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.):
- Moderator, Peter B. Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Chair, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Board of Directors
- David D. Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- Abe Krash, Retired Partner, Arnold & Porter
- Robert M. O’Neil, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of Law
- Stephen Wermiel, Fellow in Law and Government, American University Washington College of Law
On Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy hosted “Considering Gideon at 50: The History and Future of Indigent Defense.” In the 1963 Gideon v. Wainwrightdecision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” It was this unanimous decision, in an opinion authored by Justice Hugo Black, that gave true meaning to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, 50 years after this landmark decision, this country has fallen short of what is required of it by the Constitution. Three-quarters of the public defender’s offices in the country have caseloads which exceed recommended caseload standards. Some defenders are handling 500 felony cases per year when the American Bar Association advises they handle no more than 150. In some jurisdictions, prosecuting attorney offices’ budgets are three times those of public defender offices’. And in the midst of state budget crises, some offices have been forced to fire defenders.
How far have we strayed from the Supreme Court’s intent in Gideon? Have the Supreme Court’s right to counsel cases over the past 50 years been in the spirit of Gideon? What was the historical, constitutional, and legal context in which the Supreme Court reached its unanimous decision in Gideon? How do we respond to the contemporary indigent defense crisis? Panelists discussed these and other questions throughout the symposium.
Voices from the Field: Solutions from Current and Former Indigent Defense Providers (1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.):
- Moderator, Cait Clarke, Director, Strategic Initiatives, National Legal Aid & Defender Association
- Erica J. Hashimoto, Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
- Julia Leighton, General Counsel, Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
- Michael Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia
- Abbe Smith, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- Lauren Sudeall Lucas, Assistant Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
On March 1-2, 2013, ACS held its first Student Convention at Stanford Law School. Using the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright as a springboard for conversation, student leaders from across the country convened to discuss the legacy of Gideon, the future of work on behalf of low income individuals and the critical role that students can play in delivering on Gideon’s promise of a more just society.
On March 1-2, 2013, ACS held its first Student Convention at Stanford Law School. Using the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright as a springboard for conversation, student leaders from across the country convened to discuss the legacy of Gideon, the future of work on behalf of low income individuals and the critical role that students can play in delivering on Gideon’s promise of a more just society. Speakers: Jeff Adachi, James Brosnahan, Elisabeth Semel, and Sejal Zota Moderator: Justice Michael Cherry (Nev.)
