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

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less