Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

Opinion

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

Two people speaking about legal matters.

Canva Images

For many Americans, any sort of legal entanglement can send their lives into a tailspin. A landlord illegally withholding a security deposit can initiate a period of economic insecurity. An old criminal charge that qualifies for expungement may prevent someone from earning that next job. A marriage gone south can be made all the more difficult when divorce proceedings start to get squirrely. In each of these scenarios, the lives of Americans would be made vastly better if the legal profession stepped up to fulfill its obligation to everyday individuals, rather than just high-paying clients. This is a solvable problem. The solution is on display in Ohio.

The idea of “mobile justice” animated a group of Ohioans to launch the Ohio Justice Bus in 2019. They realized that too many of their community members lacked reliable access to attorneys to assist with pressing issues—from landlord/tenant disputes to family law matters. Like so many states across the country, Ohio is home to legal deserts in which the demand for legal services vastly outnumbers the supply of quality, affordable legal assistance. Rather than simply hope that more attorneys opted to settle down in smaller communities, the folks behind the Ohio Justice Bus had a much simpler idea—bring legal expertise to the people.


A simple model has allowed the organization to untangle thousands of Ohioans from resource- and time-intensive legal matters. Led by a small but mighty team, the Ohio Justice Bus coordinates with community organizations across the state to host clinics on specific, common legal issues. The organization’s staff attorney, combined with local attorneys, will then spend the day walking community members through their legal matters. To amplify the impact of its visits, the mobile legal aid office is equipped with WiFi so attorneys can remotely engage in Zoom meetings with rural residents in need of some advice. More than 600 Ohioans benefited from the Ohio Justice Bus’ services in 2023. In 2024, the organization aided another 700 residents. In each of those years, it hosted more than 105 clinics and recorded upwards of 20,000 miles.

Mobile justice in Ohio is not a happy accident. Instead, it is the product of a deliberate choice by legal community members who refuse to accept a world in which access to justice is a function of access to deep pockets. From the attorneys at Honda, who routinely sign up for volunteer slots, to the folks at a local Mercedes Benz dealership, who helped the Ohio Justice Bus procure their van, the success of the organization is a product of a collection of builders and doers.

Ohio is not the only state where mobile justice is catching on. Similar efforts exist in Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, and Utah. But there’s still so much room for improvement.

Attorneys in most states are encouraged (i.e. not required) to complete 20-30 hours of volunteer service per year. That’s shockingly low, especially given that many such attorneys make more money than they know what to do with. Some junior associates at “big law” firms have starting salaries north of $250,000. If state bar associations are going to restrict the total number of attorneys, then they owe it to the public to make sure those who do pass the bar exam take the duty of the profession to serve their community seriously—to help Americans benefit from the legal system rather than feel captive to it.

The success of the Ohio Justice Bus and similar projects goes to show that there’s still a can-do spirit across the country. Acceptance of the status quo—marked by unequal access to opportunity and pay-to-play systems—is a choice. Thankfully, some Americans are opting to choose a different, more prosperous future. Hopefully, their example will catch on.

Kevin Frazier is an Adjunct Professor at Delaware Law and an Emerging Technology Scholar at St. Thomas University College of Law.


Read More

A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch standing in front of a crowd.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, in Miami, Fla., on May 20, 2026.

US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba

The Trump administration on May 20, 2026, indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for murder, based on the downing of two planes near the Cuban coastline in 1996 that killed four people.

As a historian of Latin America and U.S. foreign policy, I believe the indictment may be the prelude to direct U.S. military action against Cuba.

Keep ReadingShow less