## Facts

- Indigent felony defendants in Berrien, Genesee, and Muskegon Counties sued the State of Michigan and the Governor in their official capacities on behalf of a class of present and future indigent felony defendants in those counties.
- Plaintiffs alleged county indigent-defense systems were so underfunded and poorly administered that indigent defendants were denied the right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution.
- Plaintiffs claimed the constitutional deficiencies were caused by inadequate state funding and insufficient fiscal and administrative oversight, making the state and governor ultimately responsible for ongoing constitutional violations.
- Plaintiffs sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to reform the indigent-defense systems; they did not seek money damages.
- The circuit court denied summary disposition based on governmental immunity and on justiciability theories (including standing and ripeness), and it granted class certification.
- The state and governor filed consolidated interlocutory appeals challenging immunity, justiciability, forum/jurisdiction, availability of equitable relief, and class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether governmental immunity barred a suit against the state and governor seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief to stop alleged ongoing constitutional violations.
2. Whether the state and governor were proper defendants where indigent-defense administration is largely delegated by statute to counties and local courts.
3. Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear an action against the state for constitutional declaratory and injunctive relief, or whether exclusive jurisdiction lay in the Court of Claims.
4. Whether plaintiffs had standing and whether the claims were ripe where relief was prospective and many class members were not yet convicted (and some not yet charged).
5. Whether a court may award declaratory relief, prohibitory injunctive relief, and mandatory injunctive relief aimed at systemic reform of indigent-defense services.
6. Whether class certification of present and future indigent felony defendants in three counties was proper.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of summary disposition based on governmental immunity because the action sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages.
- The court held the state and governor could be proper parties at the pleading stage because plaintiffs alleged state-level funding and oversight failures caused systemic constitutional violations.
- The court held the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the case for declaratory and injunctive constitutional relief; the Court of Claims was not the exclusive forum on these pleadings.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded a justiciable controversy, including standing and ripeness, based on alleged present and ongoing systemic deficiencies.
- The court held the trial court had authority to grant declaratory relief, prohibitory injunctive relief, and at least some degree of mandatory injunctive relief, with the precise scope to be determined later.
- The court affirmed class certification.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the systemic constitutional claims.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental immunity does not categorically bar suits seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to stop alleged unconstitutional conduct by state officials.
- At the pleading stage, state-level defendants may be proper parties in systemic right-to-counsel litigation where plaintiffs allege statewide funding or oversight decisions materially contribute to unconstitutional indigent-defense conditions.
- A circuit court may exercise jurisdiction over constitutional actions seeking equitable and declaratory relief against the state when the suit is not primarily a claim for money damages.
- Claims alleging current, systemic conditions that impair the right to counsel can satisfy standing and ripeness without requiring plaintiffs to wait for conviction and pursue only case-by-case appellate remedies.
- Courts may issue declaratory judgments and injunctions to prevent or remedy constitutional violations; mandatory relief may be available to the extent necessary to secure constitutional compliance, subject to later definition based on the record.
- Class treatment may be appropriate for systemic indigent-defense challenges where common questions predominate regarding shared structural deficiencies affecting present and future defendants.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a class action to proceed against the state and governor for prospective relief addressing alleged systemic denial of effective counsel in three counties, holding that immunity, forum objections, and justiciability doctrines did not require dismissal and that class certification was proper.


Duncan v. State, 774 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)