Supreme Court case will help Isles' poor

With the deadline for the expiration of benefits under federal welfare reform fast approaching, a new decision by the U.S. Supreme Court takes on huge importance for Hawai‘i.

By Dec. 1 of this year, as many as 3,000 Island families will see their welfare benefits end.

There are signs the transition will not be as jarring as many had feared, in part because our economy is improving just at the right time. Yet it is undeniable that many families — immigrants as well as those born here — will find themselves spinning helplessly in a system that seems to defy comprehension.

It is at that point when many people would turn to their best hope for representation: the Legal Aid Society of Hawai‘i.

But Legal Aid here — as elsewhere — was stymied by Congress, which placed severe restrictions on what services it can offer the poor. Congress funds the Legal Services Corp., which provides a substantial amount of the funding for the local Legal Aid office.

The case before the Supreme Court contended that the limits were unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Those who brought the case asked how Congress could place limits on the arguments Legal Aid lawyers were allowed to make.

They could help the poor under existing law, but they could not help their clients change the laws or strike them down.

Part of the reason for limiting the work of Legal Aid lawyers was to save the Legal Services Corp. from extinction. It has been a frequent target of conservatives in Congress, who don’t like to see federal dollars going to support what they perceive as trouble-making.

That might have been smart legislative strategy, but it cut out the heart of what Legal Aid could do.

That wasn’t right. And now a divided Supreme Court has struck down those congressional restrictions as unconstitutional.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that, just as we suspected, the funding restriction was a violation of First Amendment free-speech rights. He said restricting the lawyers in advising their clients and in presenting arguments to the courts amounted to a distortion of the legal system.

It’s a welcome ruling, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.

[back to top]