[_delirium]

That sounds like a different argument: that the current public-defender system operates so poorly that the result violates the 6th amendment by failing to provide effective counsel. But the proper remedy there would be to issue an injunction ordering the system to be improved, not to unfreeze certain defendants' assets, since the latter would leave the 6th amendment violation uncured in the case of defendants who don't have assets in the first place.

The current case seems to be arguing something different: that freezing defendant's assets that they could use to pay for counsel is a 6th amendment violation even assuming an effective public-defender system. That requires a separate right, something like: the right to pay for the best defense you can afford. Afaict, this is at the Supreme Court because they've never ruled either way on whether the 6th amendment includes such a right; the previous cases have focused on the minimum threshold for what constitutes effective assistance of counsel.