Thomas attacks the right of indigent criminal defendants to have counsel provided

Last week, Justice Thomas called into question one of #SCOTUS's most important First Amendment rulings. Today, he attacks the right of indigent criminal defendants to have counsel provided for them:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1026_2c83.pdf …

And Justice Gorsuch (but not Justice Alito) joined him.

Link to tweet

"history proves that the States and Federal Government are capable of making the policy determinations necessary to assign public resources to appointed counsel."

Meanwhile in Louisiana:

Link to tweet

GARZA v. IDAHO
THOMAS, J., dissenting

... and the Judiciary. History proves that the States and the Federal Government are capable of making the policy determinations necessary to assign public resources for appointed counsel. The Court has acknowledged as much. Betts, 316 U. S., at 471 (declining to extend the right to counsel to the States because “the matter has generally been deemed one of legislative policy”). Before the Court decided Gideon, the Court noted that “most of the States have by legislation authorized or even required the courts to assign counsel for the defense of indigent and unrepresented prisoners. As to capital cases, all the States so provide. Thirty-four States so provide for felonies and 28 for misdemeanors.” Bute, 333 U. S., at 663 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is beyond our constitutionally prescribed role to make these policy choices ourselves. Even if we adhere to this line of precedents, our dubious authority in this area should give us pause before we extend these precedents further.

——————