Since 2022, Idaho has implemented sweeping reforms to its public defense system, shifting from a fragmented county-based model to a centralized, state-funded Office of the Public Defender. These changes, finalized in October 2024, aimed to address long-standing constitutional concerns about inadequate legal representation for indigent defendants.
Now, the Idaho Supreme Court is reviewing whether the state’s new system meets its constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment—or if it’s too early to tell.
The reforms were prompted by a 2015 lawsuit, Tucker v. Carlson, brought by the ACLU of Idaho and the law firm Hogan Lovells. The plaintiffs argue that despite structural changes, the system still fails to provide adequate legal defense. They’re asking the court to declare the system unconstitutional, mandate a corrective plan, and appoint an independent monitor.
In court, the state defended its reforms as comprehensive and forward-thinking. But the ACLU countered that issues persist, citing attorney shortages and examples of defendants left without representation. As of August 2025, 21 public defender positions remain vacant, partly due to a wave of resignations following the reforms.
Justices expressed concern over whether current data is sufficient to judge the system’s effectiveness, with some suggesting more time is needed to evaluate outcomes under the new model. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications—not just for Idaho’s justice system, but for how other states address systemic failures in public defense.