Wednesday, November 11, 2026 America First. Truth First. America Always.
AFNSAmerica First News Syndicate
Courts & Legal Status: Dismissal upheld 3-2

Idaho Supreme Court, 3-2, Upholds Dismissal of Decade-Long ACLU Public Defense Lawsuit

By AFNS Research Desk · · 1 min read

The Idaho State Supreme Court Building in Boise
Photo: Tamanoeconomico / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (cropped)

Status: Dismissal upheld 3-2. The court left room for a future lawsuit.

What happened

On Oct. 28, the Idaho Supreme Court voted 3-2 to uphold the dismissal of Tucker v. Idaho (opinion). The ACLU filed the Sixth Amendment suit in 2015, when each of Idaho's 44 counties ran its own public defense, and argued caseloads were too high. An Ada County judge dismissed it in February 2024, after the Legislature created a statewide system that took over in October 2024 (Spokesman-Review).

The majority

Chief Justice Robyn Brody, joined by Justices Moeller and Bevan, wrote that this "is not a case in which a private actor… simply promises to do better," but one where elected officials "comprehensively restructured a public institution." Whether the new law will "ultimately succeed" is "not for us to decide today," she wrote.

The dissent

Justices Meyer and Burdick dissented. They said the case was not moot and that the new system has not been shown to fix the problems. Meyer wrote that the majority relied on a mootness framework Idaho law never adopted and the Ninth Circuit does not use.

Reaction

The ACLU of Idaho called the ruling a disappointment and said it is weighing its options (ACLU of Idaho). The ACLU says hundreds, if not thousands, of defendants went without lawyers during the new office's rocky start. That is the ACLU's claim.

Sources

  1. Idaho Supreme Court opinion (PDF) api.isc.idaho.gov
  2. Boise State Public Radio www.boisestatepublicradio.org
  3. ACLU of Idaho statement www.acluidaho.org
  4. The Spokesman-Review www.spokesman.com

See our sourcing & corrections standards.

Share on X

Spotted an error? Tell us — see our corrections policy.

More from Courts & Legal

All →
Courts & LegalMotion to dismiss the defamation claim denied; unfair-trade claim dismissed; case is not decided on the merits

Florida Judge Lets Trump's Defamation Claim Against the BBC Proceed, Dismisses Unfair-Trade Count

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz of the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday denied the BBC's motion to dismiss President Trump's defamation claim over a Panorama documentary that spliced two clips, taken about 55 minutes apart, from his Jan. 6, 2021, speech. The ruling is not a decision on the merits. Kuntz dismissed a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, finding the documentary is not commercial speech, and ordered the BBC to answer the defamation count by Dec. 1.

· AFNS Research Desk

Courts & LegalPublished Ninth Circuit opinion in Dickinson v. Trump, No. 26-1609, filed Nov. 10; preliminary injunction and provisional class certification vacated

Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction Limiting Crowd-Control Force at Portland ICE Facility

A divided Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday vacated a preliminary injunction that had restricted federal officers' use of tear gas, pepper balls, and other non-lethal munitions at the South Portland ICE facility, and it decertified a provisional protester class. Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Eric C. Tung, wrote that agents may use non-lethal force to disperse a crowd and need not wait for an imminent threat of physical harm, and that the record did not show First Amendment retaliation. Judge Ana de Alba concurred in part and dissented in part, saying she would have kept a ban on firing munitions at the head, neck, or torso.

· AFNS Research Desk

Courts & LegalNov. 10 panel opinion, as reported by Politico and Bloomberg Law; case remains partly sealed; opinion PDF was not retrieved from the court's public site

Fourth Circuit Holds DOJ's Demand for Journalists' LinkedIn Records in a Leak Probe Too Broad

A Fourth Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, held that sealed orders requiring LinkedIn to give the Justice Department 18 months of journalists' metadata in a national-security leak investigation were too broad and must be narrowed, Politico and Bloomberg Law report. Wilkinson wrote that the search would "deal a damaging blow to First Amendment freedoms," Politico reported. The ruling does not bar a narrower demand. The government's interest in investigating leaks is noted below.

· AFNS Research Desk