Kowalski v. Tesmer

Background

Two Michigan criminal-defense lawyers sued to block a new Michigan practice and statute that generally prevents appointing appellate counsel for indigent defendants who plead guilty. They joined three indigent defendants who had been denied appointed counsel. The federal district court held the practice and the statute unconstitutional and enjoined Michigan judges; the Sixth Circuit reversed in a panel decision, then the court en banc found the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court assumed the lawyers met Article III but focused on whether lawyers may assert other people’s rights. It applied the familiar two-part test for third-party standing: a close relationship and a hindrance preventing the right-holder from suing. The Court found no close relationship because the lawyers had only hypothetical future clients. It also found no sufficient hindrance because indigent defendants have state-court routes (leave to appeal, state supreme court, collateral review) and could seek this Court’s review. The Court emphasized Younger abstention concerns and noted the lawyers could have assisted clients in state court. Concluding the lawyers lacked third-party standing, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and did not decide the statute’s constitutionality.

Real world impact

The decision bars these lawyers from pursuing a federal classwide preemptive challenge on behalf of future indigent clients, leaving challenges to Michigan’s procedure to be raised by affected defendants in state courts or in later individual federal petitions. This ruling is not a final merits decision on whether Michigan may deny appointed appellate counsel, so the legal question remains open.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter) dissented, arguing the lawyers had concrete economic injury, a close relationship through appointment rosters, and showed that poor, unsophisticated defendants face real obstacles to pro se appeals; she would have allowed standing and decided the statute’s constitutionality.