Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Congress enacted the Legal Services Corporation Act, for the purpose of providing financial support for legal assistance in noncriminal proceedings or matters to persons financially unable to afford legal assistance. LSC grantees consist of hundreds of local organizations governed by local boards of directors. The grantee organizations hire and supervise lawyers to provide free legal assistance to indigent clients. As interpreted by the LSC and by the Government, grant restrictions prevent an attorney from arguing to a court that a state statute conflicts with a federal statute or that either a state or federal statute by its terms or in its application is violative of the United States Constitution. As an example, grantees could not accept representations designed to change welfare laws, much less argue against the constitutionality or statutory validity of those laws. Velaquez (P) filed in the District Court alleging the restrictions on the use of LSC funds violated the First Amendment. The court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no probability of success on the merits. The Court of Appeals upheld the restrictions on litigation, lobbying, and rulemaking 'involving an effort to reform a Federal or State welfare system,' since all three prohibited grantees' involvement in these activities regardless of the side of the issue. The court invalidated, as impermissible viewpoint discrimination, the qualification that representation could 'not involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law,' because it 'clearly seeks to discourage challenges to the status quo. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co