Discretionary appointment of counsel
Legislation, All Basic Human Needs
25 U.S.C. 175 states, "In all States and Territories where there are reservations or allotted Indians the United States District Attorney [United States Attorney] shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity." However, in an oft-quoted opinion, the Ninth Circuit stated that "We think 25 U.S.C.A. § 175 is not mandatory and that its purpose is no more than to insure the Indians adequate representation in suits to which they might be parties." Siniscal v. United States, 208 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1953).
In Siniscal, as well as other cases that have subsequently cited it, the individual reuqesting counsel was already represented by counsel. however, in Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Div., 514 Fed. Appx. 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2013), the court relied on Siniscal for the notion that appointment of counsel under the statute is discretionary, and added that "the discretionary duty of § 175 [does not] override the general test for appointment of counsel under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)."
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: discretionary Qualified: yes