Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This Article challenges one of the most robust commonplaces in the study of Indian Constitutional Law, viz. that Directive Principles of State Policy under Article IV cannot be enforced by the judiciary. Through a careful reading of the Constitution's text and structure, as well as an investigation of relevant precedents within India, the United States, and other common-law jurisdictions, it argues: (1) Article 39A commands 'the State' to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity, in particular through legal services enacted through legislation or other methods; (2) The judiciary is part of the State that Article 39A commands; (3) Courts, then, must use their powers to fulfill Article 39A even if that Article is not judicially enforceable; (4) The judiciary has authority over the maintenance and integrity of the legal system; (5) It also has its own authority to spend money to maintain and improve that system; and (6) it has the authority to allocate funds to pay lawyers and other legal personnel in civil cases if it believes that doing so will strengthen the legal system and fulfill its Article 39A mandate. The Constitution's promise of the right to counsel in civil cases thus lies well within the judicial power to accomplish. The Article suggests areas where the judiciary should use this power, e.g., family law, housing, and the environment. It also raises important questions about the very nature of Directive Principles and the meaning of judicial 'enforcement.'

Abstract
The right to counsel is a cornerstone of due process. This article explores the legal construction of "indigency" in criminal county courts. I examine Texas's Fair Defense Act (2001), a policy mandate that required all 254 counties to create formal criteria used for determining eligibility for access to counsel, as an empirical case for understanding local policy choices that shape access to justice. Drawing on novel data from court plans, I find significant variation in the stringency of eligibility criteria used to determine indigency. Results show that socioeconomic conditions, racial threat, interest group presence, and elements of judicial discretion are key determinants of restrictive eligibility criteria. These findings suggest racial threat can be tied to the institutional design of policies, rather than the enforcement or dormancy of criminal law. The variable institutionalization of eligibility criteria has implications for understanding the entrenchment of racial and class-based inequalities in access to legal institutions.