## Facts

- Michigan amended its constitution to eliminate an appeal “as of right” for defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere, allowing only discretionary appellate review.
- Michigan judges and legislation implemented a rule generally barring state-funded appointed appellate counsel for indigent defendants seeking a discretionary first appeal after a guilty plea.
- Two criminal defense attorneys and three indigent defendants who were denied appointed appellate counsel sued in federal court, alleging violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court held the scheme unconstitutional and allowed both the indigent defendants and attorneys to proceed.
- The Sixth Circuit panel applied Younger abstention to the indigent defendants due to ongoing state proceedings, found the attorneys had third-party standing, and upheld the statute on the merits.
- The Sixth Circuit en banc again found third-party standing for the attorneys but held the statute unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed only whether the attorneys had third-party standing.

## Issues

1. Whether criminal defense attorneys have third-party standing to assert the constitutional rights of indigent defendants denied appointed appellate counsel for discretionary review after guilty pleas.
2. Whether indigent defendants who plead guilty have a Fourteenth Amendment right to appointed counsel for a discretionary first appeal (not reached).

## Decision

- The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit en banc, holding the attorneys lacked third-party standing.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that Article III injury requirements were satisfied and decided the case on prudential third-party standing grounds.
- The attorneys lacked a “close” relationship with the rights-holders because they relied on speculative, future attorney-client relationships with unascertained defendants.
- The attorneys failed to show a “hindrance” preventing indigent defendants from asserting their own rights in state court and then seeking further review if necessary.
- Because standing was lacking, the Court did not reach the constitutional merits regarding a right to appointed counsel for discretionary appeals after guilty pleas.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, a litigant must assert their own legal rights and cannot rest a claim on the rights of third parties.
- Third-party standing is permitted only in limited circumstances, requiring (1) a sufficiently close relationship between the litigant and the rights-holder and (2) a meaningful hindrance to the rights-holder’s ability to protect their own interests.
- A prospective, hypothetical attorney-client relationship with unknown future clients is ordinarily insufficient to establish the required “close” relationship.
- The absence of demonstrated barriers to the rights-holders bringing their own claims defeats third-party standing, even where the challenged practice concerns access to counsel.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that criminal defense attorneys could not bring a federal constitutional challenge on behalf of indigent, guilty-pleading defendants to Michigan’s denial of appointed appellate counsel for discretionary appeals because the attorneys lacked third-party standing, leaving the underlying right-to-counsel question unresolved.


Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004)