Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez
531 U.S. 533 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may not impose a condition on the receipt of federal funds that requires lawyers to refrain from challenging the constitutionality or statutory validity of existing law, as such a condition constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination and distorts the function of the judicial system in violation of the First Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute federal funds to local organizations providing free legal aid to indigent clients in noncriminal cases.
- These local grantee organizations often receive funding from a combination of LSC funds and other public or private sources.
- In 1996, Congress passed an appropriations act with a restriction, §504(a)(16), that prohibited LSC grantees from using any of their funds to participate in litigation aimed at reforming federal or state welfare systems.
- The restriction contained an exception allowing LSC lawyers to represent individual clients seeking specific welfare benefits.
- However, this exception was limited by a proviso stating that such representation could not 'involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law.'
- The LSC interpreted this proviso to mean its attorneys were barred from arguing that a welfare statute was unconstitutional or that it conflicted with a federal law.
- Under this interpretation, if a constitutional or statutory challenge became necessary during a case, the LSC-funded attorney was required to withdraw from the representation.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawyers from LSC grantees, along with LSC contributors and indigent clients, sued the LSC and the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the funding restriction in §504(a)(16) was unconstitutional and requested an injunction against its enforcement.
- The district court (a court of first instance) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, holding that the proviso preventing challenges to existing law was an unconstitutional, viewpoint-based restriction, and it enjoined enforcement of that proviso.
- The LSC (petitioner) then successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision in a federal appropriations act that prohibits Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grantees from representing clients in an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare law violate the First Amendment rights of the grantees and their clients?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the funding restriction violates the First Amendment. A condition on federal funding that prohibits legal aid attorneys from challenging the validity of existing welfare laws constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutionally distorts the legal system. The Court distinguished this case from Rust v. Sullivan, where the government was found to be using private speakers to convey its own message. Here, LSC-funded lawyers are not speaking for the government; they are speaking on behalf of private, indigent clients in an adversarial system, often against the government itself. The restriction is not a permissible choice to fund one activity over another but is instead designed to insulate the government's own laws from judicial challenge. By preventing attorneys from raising constitutional or statutory arguments, the rule fundamentally distorts the traditional role of lawyers and undermines the judiciary's essential function of interpreting the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, because indigent clients are unlikely to find alternative counsel to raise these challenges, the restriction creates a two-tiered system of justice and leaves clients without a channel for their protected expression.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the funding restriction does not violate the First Amendment. This is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Spending Clause to define the scope of a federal subsidy program, not a direct regulation of speech. The case is indistinguishable from Rust v. Sullivan, where the Court held that the government can selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities without funding an alternative. The LSC provision does not discriminate based on viewpoint because it funds neither challenges to nor defenses of existing welfare law; it simply declines to subsidize a certain class of litigation. The majority’s distinction between government and private speech is unpersuasive, and its theory that the restriction 'distorts' the judicial system is a novel and unsupported legal principle. The government is not constitutionally required to provide lawyers for welfare claimants, and a decision not to subsidize certain arguments does not place claimants in a worse position than they would be in without the LSC program.
Analysis:
This decision places a significant limit on the government's ability to use funding conditions to control speech, establishing a key exception to the doctrine articulated in Rust v. Sullivan. The Court held that when government funding facilitates private speech within an independent sphere like the judiciary, it cannot impose conditions that distort the traditional function of that sphere or insulate the government's own laws from review. The case reaffirms the distinct role of the legal profession and the courts in the constitutional order, suggesting that viewpoint discrimination is particularly suspect when it interferes with an attorney's duty to a client and the judiciary's role in resolving controversies. This precedent will be critical in future cases involving government subsidies for programs that involve advocacy, expression, and the challenging of governmental authority.
