As the country’s largest funder of civil legal aid, LSC provides critical legal representation to low-income Americans—including veterans, families with children and seniors—who are facing life-altering civil legal challenges such as wrongful evictions, domestic violence and consumer fraud. Defunding LSC would not only deny vulnerable individuals access to justice, but would ultimately increase costs for taxpayers.

When someone is accused of a crime and does not have the resources to hire an attorney, state and federal governments provide legal representation. This is not the case when people face civil actions such as custody battles, foreclosure or denial of veterans and social security benefits. To qualify for legal aid, people must meet strict income guidelines: a family of four must earn less than $32,150 a year and an individual must earn less than $15,650.

A well-functioning legal system is fundamental to maintaining order and ensuring justice. LSC provides essential funding for legal aid organizations that assist low-income American workers and families in navigating civil legal disputes. Without this assistance, many would be left without legal recourse, exacerbating instability in communities and overburdening the courts with self-represented litigants. //

Rather than promoting progressive legal activism, as the misguided article states, LSC and its grantees are bound by strict statutory limitations (imposed by Congress) on the types of cases it can support. LSC grantees cannot engage in class-action lawsuits, lobbying, or political advocacy, and those restrictions apply to funding from any source. In other words, if a grantee accepts so much as $1 from LSC, it must abide by the same conditions that Congress imposed; it cannot raise money from other sources and engage in any prohibited activities. Moreover, extensive, multi-layered oversight mechanisms, including an independent Office of the Inspector General, review and ensure that both LSC and its grantees operate within the scope of these limitations. The idea that civil legal aid is a vehicle for partisan activism is a mischaracterization that ignores the broad restrictions set by Congress. //

Rather than eliminating LSC, a more constructive approach would be to ensure its funding is used effectively and transparently. Lawmakers should focus, as they have in the past, on strengthening accountability measures while maintaining this critical safety net that aligns with the principles of fairness, efficiency and limited government intervention. //

Reply:

Hecht and Malcolm assert that, today, Congress has finally succeeded in restricting LSC’s radical mission. Let us for a moment grant that they are correct (which they are not); is it not strange that they see no irony in urging conservatives to accept and embrace Lyndon Johnson’s original Great Society vision of federal funding for private lawsuits? As constitutionalists, conservatives flatly reject the notion that Congress, under any circumstances, should be injecting each year hundreds of millions of dollars into the private practice of law. //

Meanwhile, California Rural Legal Assistance continues to sue state entities, such as the Bakersfield City School District, for not spending enough public money on education. A generation ago, Governor Reagan wondered, as should President Trump today, what business the federal government has in financing private lawsuits against state and local entities. If a majority of Californians seek to change public policy on education, let them win at the ballot box, not in the courthouse in league with an activist judge. //

It is the same with America’s out-of-control homelessness policies, which have been pushed to extremes, ruining much of our country’s urban life. Homelessness is another public policy passion in the legal aid world and judicial activism is the approach that most LSC grantees support.