Archive for the 'Access to Justice' Category
The Tennessean reports that Sawn Hing, a Burmese refugee who spent two years tangled in the criminal justice system after facing child abuse accusations, has had her case reopened. According to the article, the case raises questions about the Nashville court system’s ability to deal with its growing immigrant and refugee populations.
Saw Hing’s case was reopened after it emerged that Hing’s pastor, who was used in court proceedings to interpret and translate Hing’s rare language of Matu-Chin, didn’t actually speak the language or understand the legal terms in English.
With over 120 languages spoken in Nashville metro schools alone, immigrant advocates argue that the case highlights how cultural and linguistic differences are becoming an increasing barrier to accessing justice among immigrant and minority populations. Read more
In communities that are magnets for immigrants, ensuring access to justice for people without much knowledge of English can be a challenge. A NPR Buffalo report from New York state illustrates how one judge is trying to meet the challenge.
In one Buffalo area, NPR says, “There are so many languages that Family Court Judge Lisa Bloch Rodwin has a a phone translation system for some tongues that no certified interpreter speaks locally. That’s why she is now on a statewide Advisory Council on Immigration Issues in Family Court, seeking to make the system work better.”
The report is headlined, “Courts adapting to challenges posed by growing immigrant populations.”
Pundits are continuing to fault a proposed constitutional amendment for judicial term limits in Florida (see Gavel Grab). At the Vero Beach Press Journal, attorney Mark Miller says the proposal does not promote highly qualified senior judges, has not been well thought out and does not make sense.
It is not at all clear why sponsors of the proposal believe it is needed, writes Miller, vice president of the Martin County Bar Association, given that Florida voters have an opportunity every six years to remove a judge from the intermediate appellate or state Supreme Court bench.
“Those who have proposed to amend the Florida Constitution do not appear to have given this change the kind of thought and consideration that the people of Florida deserve,” he concludes. Read more
A recent article by the Texas Tribune reports that a large number of mostly middle class Texans fall into a “justice gap” where they aren’t poor enough to receive free legal aid provided to indigents but can’t afford basic legal services on their own.
The article reports that the state’s highest civil court launched a new commission to identify and assist Texans who have fallen into the “justice gap.” “The 18-member Texas Commission to Expand Civil Legal Services, led by former Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, will spend the next year gathering data and coming up with recommendations to be presented in November 2016.”
In interview with the Tribune, Jefferson said, “one of the most famous phrases in American law is liberty and justice for all — it is part of our culture, it is part of our custom, it is part of the fabric of our democracy…one of the biggest challenges today is to make that phrase a promise and to make that promise a reality.”
“Today, even most lawyers cannot afford to retain another lawyer to represent them in civil legal disputes,” Jefferson said. “This is a crisis for the legal profession and for our state.”
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will face a far-reaching decision when he chooses the next chief judge of the state’s highest court, from seven candidates recommended by a vetting commission, a New York Times editorial says.
In discussing the appointment, the editorial lauds retiring Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the state Court of Appeals for his accomplishments.
“[H]is most lasting legacy could be his effort to provide lawyers for the thousands of low-income New Yorkers who face serious civil proceedings — from eviction and foreclosure to the loss of child custody — with no legal support at all,” the editorial says. It also mentions his efforts to make the court system more fair and transparent, to reform the state’s bail system and to cut wrongful convictions.
Is there a difference between how state judges who are elected, and those who are appointed, address bans against marriage for same-sex couples? A Los Angeles Times op-ed by Billy Corriher of the Center for American Progress and Eric Lesh of Lambda Legal says there is a difference.
State high courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and New Jersey have issued decisions in favor of marriage equality, as have judges in Hawaii and California, although ballot measures later overruled those judges’ rulings, the authors said. All of these judges were appointed, and, the authors added, “Like federal judges with life tenure, they felt at liberty to side with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, even if in so doing they were siding against the majority.”
Elected judges in such states as Arkansas and Texas “have lagged behind for years, perhaps because they feel pressure to rule based on popular sentiment,” the authors said, and the justices in those states “seem to be avoiding a political controversy by delaying their rulings.” And elected justices in Alabama voted to defy a federal court order telling probate judges that same-sex couples have a right to marry. The authors concluded, with an eye on an ultimate ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court: Read more
When politics collides with selecting judges, the outcome can directly affect people who use our courts. The latest evidence of this concern comes from a NJ.com article reporting the following:
“Scores of divorce and civil trials in Bergen County have been suspended indefinitely due to judicial retirements and an ongoing political battle between the governor and Democratic state senators.”
New Jersey requires Senate confirmation of the governor’s judicial nominees, similar to the federal method for picking judges, but its judges do not get lifetime appointments as federal judges do. Gov. Chris Christie is a Republican, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Read moreNo comments
Thousands of Americans no longer have access to justice when it comes to suing corporations, after a conservative legal movement has pushed hard for judicial restraint and a corporate lobby has pressed for “tort reform,” Lina Kahn of the New America Foundation writes at Washington Monthly. Kahn says:
“Two recent US Supreme Court rulings — AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant have deeply undercut … centuries-old public rights, by empowering businesses to avoid any threat of private lawsuits or class actions. The decisions culminate a thirty-year trend during which the judiciary, including initially some prominent liberal jurists, has moved to eliminate courts as a means for ordinary Americans to uphold their rights against companies. The result is a world where corporations can evade accountability and effectively skirt swaths of law, pushing their growing power over their consumers and employees past a tipping point.” Read moreNo comments
When some U.S. Senate critics of the nominee for a top Justice Department post recently criticized his having represented a defendant convicted of killing a police officer, Justice at Stake spoke out about the resulting dangerous implications for citizens’ access to justice (see Gavel Grab).
Now a similar controversy is generating news headlines and debate. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come under attack from some critics for her representation in 1975 of an indigent defendant accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Regarding this criticism, attorney Jonathan Adler writes in the Washington Post, “It seems that election season is open season on defense attorneys.” Adler elaborates: Read moreNo comments
States with diverse populations are facing a rising need to provide language interpreters in court, and the cost is causing challenges for states with money constraints, the New York Times says.
In its article from Santa Fe, New Mexico, the Times reports, “As the Demand for Court Interpreters Climbs, State Budget Conflicts Grow as Well.” At home, about one of three New Mexico residents speaks a language other than English. Since 2004, a fund that pays the wages of court interpreters has increased by 76 percent, while demand for court interpreters has grown faster.
When Arthur W. Pepin, director of New Mexico’s Administrative Office of the Courts, appeared before a state finance board to ask for additional funds, he warned that he might have to start issuing IOUs to jurors, because their Read moreNo comments