Velazquez v. Legal Servs. Corp.

No. 97 Civ. 00182 (FB) (E.D. N.Y. filed May 3, 2002); 99-603 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2001); 68 U.S.L.W. 3629 (2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51556

Description

Supreme Court Rules That Prohibition on LSC Attorneys Representing Clients Challenging Welfare Laws Is Unconstitutional

Abstract

The Supreme Court held that the restriction prohibiting Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grantees from representing clients who sought to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare law violated the First Amendment. Petitioner LSC distributes funds that Congress appropriates to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in civil matters. In every annual appropriations act since 1996, Congress has prohibited grantees of these funds from engaging in litigation to challenge welfare law. Respondents—lawyers whom LSC grantees employed—sought to invalidate the restriction. The district court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction; reversing the district court, the Second Circuit invalidated the restriction. Affirming the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court held that, although the government had the latitude to ensure that its own message is being delivered when it subsidizes private speech, LSC was “designed to facilitate private speech, not to promote a governmental message.” The Court distinguished Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), which upheld a restriction prohibiting doctors whom federally funded family planning clinics employed from discussing abortion with their patients. Such counseling activities amounted to governmental speech, said the Court, whereas an LSC attorney’s activities on behalf of a private, indigent client in a welfare benefits claim—where the attorney defending the government position delivered the government’s message—did not. Further, restricting LSC attorneys in advising their clients and in presenting arguments and analyses to the courts distorted the legal system by altering the attorneys’ traditional role; such a restriction created two tiers of cases and impaired the judicial function. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the restriction was harmless because LSC-funded attorneys could simply withdraw from welfare cases; the Court noted that an indigent client was unlikely to find other counsel. Furthermore, the Court found that the restriction reflected a congressional attempt to “insulate its own laws from legitimate judicial challenge,” a condition implicating central First Amendment concerns. In a subsequent order, the Court denied certiorari on challenges to the remaining LSC restrictions; the Court’s order let stand the Second Circuit’s decision, which upheld the regulations.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff-appellants represented by Burt Neuborne, Deborah Goldberg, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, David S. Udell, Brennan Center for Justice, 161 Ave. of the Americas, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10013; 212.998.6363.
Docket Date
2002-05-03 00:00:00+00:00