Justice for the Marginalized: Closing the Legal Access Gap
The unmet civil legal needs of low-income Americans constitute a significant part of the justice gap in American society. According to a report by the Legal Services Corporation, low-income individuals received little or no legal help for ninety-two percent of their civil legal problems, citing concerns about the cost of legal help as the main barrier to seeking and receiving it (Legal Services Corporation, 2022). This statistic exposes a harsh reality that many low-income individuals face. Livelihoods, homes, children, jobs, and physical safety are at stake in these cases. Individuals are forced to navigate a complex legal system where an uncrossed “T” or an undotted “I” could cost them everything. The Supreme Court agreed with this much in Gideon v. Wainwright (Supreme Court, 1963) when Justice Black wrote, “Reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, 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" Gideon v. Wainwright (Supreme Court, 1963). Access to an attorney should not be dependent on financial ability. The United States should enact federal legislation establishing a civil right to counsel to ensure proper access to justice and fulfill its human rights commitments.
Without legal assistance, basic needs such as shelter, food, medical care, employment, etc., are rendered virtually meaningless (Marvy & Gardner, 2005, p. 8). Eviction or the threat of eviction is a heavy burden for many families nationwide. The state of Indiana, for example, has some of the harshest renter laws, leaving tenants in undesirable legal positions. The Department of Housing and Urban Development v Rucker is a salient case that addresses renter violations under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The central question of this case is whether public housing agencies have the grounds to evict tenants for drug-related activity of non-tenants or guests, regardless of whether the tenant knew about this activity. All the defendants in this case were evicted because of drug activity by others coming into their homes, most notably a caregiver who brought drugs into the home of an elderly man she was caring for. The Supreme Court ruled that public housing authorities did have the discretion to evict tenants who violated the Act, writing that Congress could also enforce no-fault evictions to provide public housing that was "decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs” Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker (Supreme Court, 2002).
Crime-free and chronic nuisance ordinances are additional methods for evicting low-income residents. Under the guise of promoting safe, high-quality neighborhoods, crime-free and chronic nuisance ordinances harm residents, particularly low-income residents, residents of color, and women experiencing domestic violence. These ordinances limit the number of times a tenant can call 911. Under some laws, anything can be deemed as a nuisance, including domestic violence, suicide, or a missing child (Edelman, 2017, p. 140). After the limit of 911 calls has been reached, the landlord is forced to evict the tenant. For victims of domestic violence, these ordinances put them in grave danger. They are unable to seek help when they are being abused for fear of losing their home. These ordinances target neighbors. They cannot call 911 on someone’s behalf because it would count against the person they were calling for and, potentially, themselves. Tenants cannot exercise their right to safety for fear of being evicted. Low-income individuals cannot take that risk and live in fear as a result.
More than fifty countries provide a civil right to counsel (Marvy & Gardner, 2005, p. 8). Constitutionally, there is no right to counsel in civil cases, creating a gap in access to justice that leaves people with low incomes without legal defense. A 2015 Universal Periodic Review of the United States stated that the U.S.’s signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent ratification was a commitment to ensure “meaningful and equal access to justice” (Human Rights Clinic, 2014). A civil right to counsel reframes people experiencing poverty as relevant societal stakeholders, shedding the narrative of criminality that has plagued their image.
Written by Jordan Brown, Member of the Public Health & Research Department
References:
Department of Housing and Development v. Rucker. 535. U.S. 125. 2002
Edelman, P.B. (2017). Not a Crime to be Poor: The Criminalization of Poverty in America. New York. The New Press
Gideon v. Wainwright. 372. U.S. 335. 1963
Human Rights Clinic. (2014). Access to Justice: Ensuring Meaningful Access to Counsel in Civil Cases. Syracuse L. Rev, 64, 409. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/human_rights_institute/41
Legal Services Corporation. (2022). The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans. Prepared by Mary C. Slosar, Slosar Research LLC.
Marvy, P., & Gardner, D. (2005). A Civil Right to Counsel for the Poor. Human Rights, 32(3), 8–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27880487
