SCLC v. Supreme Court of La.

61 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. La. 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53855

Description

Fifth Circuit Holds That State Supreme Court’s Indigence and Solicitation Restrictions Placed on Law School Clinics Did Not Violate Free Speech

Abstract

The Fifth Circuit held that amendments to Rule XX of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Louisiana—amendments that tightened indigence requirements of and imposed solicitation restrictions on law school–sponsored clinical legal instruction and representation in the Louisiana state courts—did not impermissibly restrict free speech in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff-appellants—law school clinical professors and student practitioners, community organizations that the clinics represented, and student organizations—filed a Section 1983 action against defendant-appellee, the Louisiana Supreme Court, to enjoin as unconstitutional the enforcement of its March 22, 1999, amendments to Rule XX. The amendments (1) allowed representation of individuals or families only if their annual income was less than 200 percent of the current federal poverty guidelines and required that indigent community organizations seeking representation from a clinic certify in writing their inability to pay for legal services and (2) prohibited clinical student practitioners from representing as attorneys an otherwise qualified individual or organization if solicited by any person associated with the clinic. Plaintiffs claimed that the amendments were invalid on their face as impermissible restrictions on their First Amendment freedoms and that the court amended Rule XX in retaliation against the clinics’ and their clients’ political speech and advocacy and therefore the amendments were an impermissible form of viewpoint discrimination. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. After finding that plaintiffs had standing, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the indigence requirements did not on their face implicate any speech interest, the solicitation restrictions did not impermissibly restrict plaintiffs’ speech, and each was rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Affirming the district court, the Fifth Circuit also concluded that the solicitation restrictions were viewpoint-neutral and that defendant-appellee’s motivation, in this limited context, was irrelevant.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff-appellants represented by Marjorie R. Esman, 701 South Peters Street, Suite 100, New Orleans LA 70130 (504.524.5328); Mary E. Howell, Howell & Snead, 316 South Dorgenois Street, New Orleans LA 70119 (504.822.4455); David S. Udell, Richard R. Buery, Jr., Burt Neuborne, Brennan Center for Justice, 161 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor, New York NY 10013 (212.998.6720)
Docket Date
2001-05-29 00:00:00+00:00