The Arkansas Department of Corrections and its parole board have been hit with a proposed class action in federal court, claiming the state agencies have been refusing to provide a public defender during what the suit calls "sham" parole revocation hearings.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Arkansas federal court by a group of people whose parole was revoked by the board, claims that policies from the Department of Corrections and the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board refusing to even screen potentially indigent people to appoint an attorney for free, violates their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit describes Arkansas' parole system as being exceptionally complicated, with multiple steps that could ensnare alleged parole violators and send them back to prison. Attorneys are allowed at the proceeding, but the lawsuit claims the agencies refuse to appoint a public defender to people on parole who cannot afford private counsel.

"Hundreds of parolees at risk of revocation fight to maintain their freedom at complex revocation hearings. Many of them need and are entitled to appointed counsel to help them navigate these arcane proceedings," the complaint said. "Yet, as a matter of practice, procedure, and custom, defendants systematically deny indigent parolees their right to counsel."

The complaint says Arkansas' parole system disproportionately impacts low-income parole recipients, and the parole revocation process in particular has been responsible for causing them to be reincarcerated. The state in 2023 sent more than 6,200 people back to prison for alleged parole violations, higher than in Texas or California, which have larger populations.

A parole recipient in Arkansas may face a potential revocation either by being charged with a specific violation of their parole terms by law enforcement or a parole officer, or when a report is filed by the Arkansas Division of Community Correction, a subagency of the Department of Corrections, the lawsuit says.

Alleged violators are then given a choice to either have a two-step revocation hearing to contest the violation or to waive the hearings altogether, with a waiver resulting in their return to prison. The amount of prison time a violator is given depends on the violation and the underlying crime that resulted in parole, according to the lawsuit.

Violators who choose to have a hearing are allowed a preliminary and final revocation hearing, where they are allowed to testify, call witnesses and introduce evidence that refutes the alleged violation, as well as cross-examine adverse witnesses, the lawsuit says.

The suit describes the hearings, held before administrative parole revocation judges, as a "rubber stamp" for the parole violation report filed by the parole officer or law enforcement agency that described the specific violations.

According to the suit, based on a Freedom of Information Act request filed by counsel, the Department of Corrections and parole board admitted they do not have any policies in place relating to the screening of alleged violators who might need appointed counsel during the hearing.

The parole board also routinely denies requests for appointed counsel even though the alleged violators have a constitutional right to representation during the hearings, the lawsuit says.

The suit said the U.S. Supreme Court requires bodies like the parole board to appoint counsel to indigent alleged violators, with the suit pointing to the 1972 case of Morrissey v. Brewer and the 1973 case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which both articulate the court's views on attorney access during parole hearings.

The lawsuit also claims that in addition to the right to counsel, the lack of appointed counsel violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act because the board is requiring alleged violators with special needs to navigate the complex process without any assistance.

The suit seeks to enjoin the agencies from enforcing rules that prevent the appointment of counsel for low-income parole recipients, as well as require the state to put in place a mechanism for screening potential cases requiring a public defender.

A spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Corrections and attorneys for the plaintiff did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

The parolees are represented by John C. Williams and Hadiyah Cummings of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, Olivia Fritz, Emily C. Keller and by Bridget Geraghty of Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center and S.Y. Jessica Hui, Christine C. Smith, Chanelle N. Jones and Samir Deger-Sen of Latham & Watkins LLP.

Counsel information for the government was not immediately available.

The case is Davis et al. v. Hamlet et al., case number 4:26-cv-00089, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

--Editing by Rich Mills.