Check out the NCCRC’s legislative activity in the 2026 session!

The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (NCCRC), a project of the Public Justice Center, is the only entity in the country dedicated solely to advancing the right to counsel in critical civil cases. Legal counsel in life-changing civil cases makes a difference: represented individuals are more likely to remain housed, secure protective orders, and avoid immigration removal.  As part of its work, the NCCRC tracks relevant civil right to counsel legislation around the country.  We work with local advocates on high priority legislation, because a shift in the law can be the difference between a mandatory appointment of counsel and the court making the appointment decision at its discretion, or whether the stated interests of a child involved in a child welfare case or a person subject to an adult guardianship case are represented to the court.

As of May 2026, the NCCRC: 

• Tracked almost 200 federal- and state-level bills to enact, change, or repeal a right to counsel in our key areas, which include housing (primarily eviction cases), family law, domestic violence, guardianship, immigration, civil forfeiture, civil incarceration, and education.  Across the bills, we’ve identified some trends:
  • Child Welfare | Family Regulation. Both last session and in 2026, we saw bills that would require notice to parents upon their first interaction with child protective services, sometimes referred to as “Miranda Rights for Families.” Parents would have to be informed of the allegations against them, their right to counsel, and their right to remain silent. As is often the case, there are also bills seeking to change the representation model for children from best interests to client-directed or vice versa.
  • Forfeiture. Civil forfeiture laws allow government entities to confiscate and retain individual property allegedly connected to a criminal case or investigation, often without a criminal conviction. Seven states and the U.S. Congress all introduced bills this session that would establish or expand appointments in forfeiture cases.
  • Guardianship. Numerous states have introduced bills again this session to adopt provisions from the Uniform Guardianship Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements (UGCOPA) Act. Read more about guardianship in our 2025-2026 Right to Counsel in Guardianship Cases Overview.
  • Housing: So far this session, there are 31 eviction-related bills, the vast majority of which would establish or expand a tenant right to counsel (TRTC), some to appropriate money for a TRTC program, and one that would require the judiciary to collect and publicly share eviction-related data.  Unfortunately, the state of Indiana introduced a bill that attempts to preempt municipalities from regulating anything within the landlord-tenant field and a bill in Wisconsin failed to pass because it was introduced too late in the session. 
  • Immigration. Immigration proceedings and the lack of a right to counsel in these cases came to the forefront in 2025. Many states have introduced bills that, while not providing a right to appointed counsel, aim to ensure that detained persons are able to contact their attorney, guaranteeing an “opportunity to consult with counsel” and “reasonable phone access.”  These bills emphasize growing concerns about rampant rights violations at detention facilities, including a lack of access to counsel, an issue that is unfortunately not new.
    
    
• Submitted testimony on twelve (12) bills, most commonly upon request by a state or national partner:
  
  
  • • Child Welfare | Family Regulation. As outlined in the American Bar Association’s Model Act Governing Representation of Children in Dependency, when children are involved in these cases it is imperative that they are appointed an attorney that represents their stated interests.
      • Arizona | SB 1234 would repeal a child’s right to client-directed counsel and replace it with mandatory appointment of an attorney ad litem and discretionary appointment of counsel. We submitted testimony in opposition.
      • Hawai’i | HB 1565 / SB 2678 would create a judicial working group to review recommendations for improving access to counsel for youth. The recommendations were made by the malama ohana working group, which included youth and families throughout the State.
      • Illinois | HB 4966 would create a right to counsel for youth in care with special needs.  Although children are currently entitled to representation, that can be fulfilled be either a CASA or an attorney guardian ad litem (GAL).
      • West Virginia | SB 539 would weaken a child’s right to client-directed counsel in neglect proceedings. We submitted testimony in opposition.
    • Forfeiture. The law in most states allows the government to seize property alleged to have been involved in a crime (cars, houses, etc.), even if the person has not been or is never convicted of a crime, and in some states the criminal right to counsel does not extend to the portion of the criminal case addressing forfeiture of property.
      • Colorado | HB 1250
      • New Hampshire | HB 1801 would specify that if a defendant has a public defender in their criminal case, they represent the defendant for the forfeiture proceeding.
    • Housing.
      • California | SB 1160 would require the Judicial Council to collect data on evictions and share the data publicly and with the California legislature
      • Rhode Island | HB 8141 / SB 2972 would establish a “civil right to full legal representation for eligible individuals in an eviction action” and create a division of civil representation within the department of housing to implement the right to counsel program.
    • Guardianship. People subject to guardianship petitions need an attorney to represent their interests because these cases can strip individuals of their fundamental rights (where they live, medicine they take, who they can associate with, etc.).
      • Alaska | SB 190 would unfortunately narrow the right to counsel for protected persons in guardianship proceedings and we submitted testimony in opposition.
      • Colorado | HB 1100 would’ve required appointment of counsel in guardianship cases (regardless of request) and specified that the appointed attorney must represent the respondent’s wishes (as opposed to only their best interests). Unfortunately, these provisions were removed through amendment, and the bill is now simply a “Guardianship Bill of Rights.”
      • Virginia | SB 345 would strengthen the discretionary appointment of counsel in guardianship cases by allowing appointment when requested by an immediate family member or an agent who is party to the proceedings.  We support strengthening discretionary appointments, but took this opportunity to submit testimony to push the VA legislature to go even further and create a right to counsel instead of a discretionary appointment system.
      • Washington | SB 5837 would weaken the right to counsel for adults in guardianship cases by changing the law from requiring counsel for all indigent respondents to only those who object.  We submitted testimony in opposition.
• Contacted local, state or national partners about eleven (11) bills;
• Provided technical assistance on four (4) bills, including help with drafting bill language.

Visit the NCCRC’s website for news or legislative updates. The website is updated as bills are introduced. Local ordinances do not appear on the legislative developments page or on the status map unless they have been enacted.