"However, Rutgers Law professor Sally Goldfarb said the courts have judicial immunity from such lawsuits. Further, Goldfarb said, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an earlier case that civil litigants, unlike those facing criminal charges, do not have a right to a court-appointed attorney."

Professor Goldfarb is wrong on both points.

Initially, the suit seeks to enjoin the Administrative Office of the Courts, not a judicial defendant.  Just because the director of the AOC happens to be a judge does not immunize him from suit.

Further, Goldfarb said, the U.S. Supreme Court held in an earlier case that civil litigants, unlike those facing criminal charges, do not have a right to a court-appointed attorney. 

Interesting that she doesn't name the case.  She made a similar comment when the federal suit was initially filed in 2000, and couldn't name it then, either.  That's because she's inventing the case.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held the opposite - In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), the Court held "an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel ... when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty."  Lassiter remains good law (see the brief accompanying the order to show cause for a full discussion of the topic) and every federal appellate court to reach the merits of the issue has ruled that potential incarceration creates a "bright line rule" mandating the appointment of counsel.  See, Walker v. McLain, 768 F.2d 1181 (10th Cir.App. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061 (1986), Mastin v. Fellerhoff, 526 F.Supp. 969 (S.D.Ohio 1981).  While it is true that the right to counsel arises under the Fourteenth Amendment (the Due Process Clause) and not the Sixth Amendment (Rights of defendants in criminal prosecutions),  Pasqua rests on Fourteenth Amendment, not Sixth Amendment grounds. If a Supreme Court case held what Professor Goldfarb claims, none of these courts would have ruled as they did. Finally, if such a Supreme Court case existed, the Third Circuit in Anthony v. Council would not have determined that plaintiffs had standing to raise this claim in State Court.  In fact, if the US Supreme Court had held that contempt proceedings provided an exception to Lassiter's mandate,  the Third Circuit would have been bound to find that plaintiffs did not have standing (as no Constitutional injury would have been alleged) and would have dismissed the case on those grounds.  Instead, the second highest court in the country chose to add language completely unnecessary to its abstention decision: "We do not intend to minimize the importance of the rights asserted. But we believe this constitutional challenge should be raised in the New Jersey courts."  Third Circuit Decision (Jan 2003)