Ethics

Opinion here.  Update: Nice post by Steven Schwinn at Con Law Prof Blog.  First four paragraphs:

We must determine whether restrictions on lobbying, soliciting clients, and participating in class actions (collectively, the ?Restrictions?) that Congress has imposed on legal aid organizations that receive federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation (?LSC?), comport with the requirements of the First Amendment. In Legal Aid Soc?y of Haw. v. Legal Serv. Corp., 145 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (?LASH III?), we upheld the Restrictions as facially constitutional. We concluded that LSC?s program integrity rule (?PIR?) permits grantees to channel restricted speech, paid for with non-federal dollars, through unrestricted affiliates, and thus, the Restrictions do not unconstitutionally condition the receipt of federal funds on the relinquishment of First Amendment rights. Id. at 1025.

Legal Aid Services of Oregon (?LASO?), Oregon Law Center (?OLC?), individual LASO and OLC attorneys and board members, and organizations representing LASO clients and private donors (collectively ?Plaintiffs?), present a two-pronged attack on the Restrictions and PIR. First, they contend that the Supreme Court?s decision in Legal Serv. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001) (?Velazquez III?) superseded LASH III, and that under Velazquez III, the Restrictions must be struck down as facially violative of the First Amendment. Next, they contend that, even if LASH III remains good law, LSC has applied the PIR to them in a manner that cuts off alternative avenues for engaging in protected speech.

The district court dismissed Plaintiffs? facial challenge to the Restrictions, granted summary judgment in favor of LSC on their as-applied challenge to the PIR, and denied their motion for a new trial.

We have jurisdiction to review the final judgment of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm