legal
services
corporation
velazquez
et
argued
october
decided
february
legal
services
corporation
act
authorizes
petitioner
legal
services
corporation
lsc
distribute
funds
appropriated
congress
local
grantee
organizations
providing
free
legal
assistance
indigent
clients
inter
alia
welfare
benefits
claims
every
annual
appropriations
act
since
congress
prohibited
lsc
funding
organization
represented
clients
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
welfare
law
grantees
continue
representation
welfare
matter
even
constitutional
statutory
validity
challenge
becomes
apparent
representation
well
way
respondents
lawyers
employed
lsc
grantees
together
others
filed
suit
declare
inter
alia
restriction
invalid
district
denied
preliminary
injunction
second
circuit
invalidated
restriction
finding
impermissible
viewpoint
discrimination
violated
first
amendment
held
funding
restriction
violates
first
amendment
pp
lsc
government
also
petitioner
claim
rust
sullivan
upheld
restriction
prohibiting
doctors
employed
federally
funded
family
planning
clinics
discussing
abortion
patients
supports
restriction
however
since
explained
rust
counseling
activities
amounted
governmental
speech
sustaining
funding
decisions
instances
government
speaker
see
board
regents
univ
system
southworth
instances
like
rust
government
uses
private
speakers
transmit
information
pertaining
program
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
although
government
latitude
ensure
message
delivered
neither
latitude
rationale
applies
subsidies
private
speech
every
instance
like
rosenberger
program
lsc
program
designed
facilitate
private
speech
promote
governmental
message
lsc
attorney
speaks
behalf
private
indigent
client
welfare
benefits
claim
government
message
delivered
attorney
defending
benefits
decision
attorney
advice
client
advocacy
courts
classified
governmental
speech
even
generous
understanding
concept
vital
respect
suit
distinguishable
rust
pp
private
nature
instant
speech
extent
lsc
regulation
private
expression
indicated
circumstance
government
seeks
control
existing
medium
expression
ways
distort
usual
functioning
cases
involving
limited
forum
though
controlling
provide
instruction
evaluating
restrictions
governmental
subsidies
program
presumes
private
nongovernmental
speech
necessary
substantial
restriction
placed
upon
speech
providing
subsidies
lsc
government
seeks
facilitate
suits
benefits
using
state
federal
judiciaries
independent
bar
depend
proper
performance
duties
responsibilities
restricting
lsc
attorneys
advising
clients
presenting
arguments
analyses
courts
distorts
legal
system
altering
attorneys
traditional
role
much
way
broadcast
systems
student
publication
networks
changed
limited
forum
cases
arkansas
ed
television
forbes
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
supra
government
may
design
subsidy
effect
serious
fundamental
restriction
advocacy
attorneys
functioning
judiciary
informed
independent
judiciary
presumes
informed
independent
bar
however
instant
restriction
prevents
lsc
attorneys
advising
courts
serious
statutory
validity
questions
also
threatens
severe
impairment
judicial
function
sifting
cases
presenting
constitutional
challenges
order
insulate
government
laws
judicial
inquiry
result
restriction
two
tiers
cases
lingering
doubt
whether
lsc
attorney
truncated
representation
resulted
complete
analysis
case
full
advice
client
proper
presentation
courts
public
come
question
adequacy
fairness
professional
representations
attorney
avoided
reference
statutory
validity
constitutional
authority
questions
scheme
inconsistent
accepted
principles
insufficient
basis
sustain
uphold
restriction
speech
pp
lsc
attorneys
withdraw
make
restriction
harmless
statute
attempt
draw
lines
around
lsc
program
exclude
litigation
arguments
theories
congress
finds
unacceptable
nature
within
courts
province
consider
restriction
even
problematic
cases
attorney
withdraws
indigent
client
unlikely
find
counsel
may
alternative
source
vital
information
client
constitutional
statutory
rights
stark
contrast
rust
patient
receive
governmentally
subsidized
counseling
consultation
independent
affiliate
organizations
finally
notwithstanding
congress
purpose
confine
limit
program
restriction
insulates
current
welfare
laws
constitutional
scrutiny
certain
legal
challenges
condition
implicating
central
first
amendment
concerns
little
doubt
lsc
act
funds
constitutionally
protected
expression
programmatic
message
kind
recognized
rust
sufficed
allow
government
specify
advice
deemed
necessary
legitimate
objectives
pp
appeals
concluded
funding
restriction
severed
statute
leaving
remaining
portions
operative
determination
contested
exercise
discretion
prudential
judgment
declines
address
pp
affirmed
kennedy
delivered
opinion
stevens
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
thomas
joined
legal
services
corporation
petitioner
carmen
velazquez
et
al
petitioner
carmen
velazquez
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
february
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
congress
enacted
legal
services
corporation
act
stat
et
seq
act
establishes
legal
services
corporation
lsc
district
columbia
nonprofit
corporation
lsc
mission
distribute
funds
appropriated
congress
eligible
local
grantee
organizations
purpose
providing
financial
support
legal
assistance
noncriminal
proceedings
matters
persons
financially
unable
afford
legal
assistance
lsc
grantees
consist
hundreds
local
organizations
governed
typical
case
local
boards
directors
many
instances
grantees
funded
combination
lsc
funds
public
private
sources
grantee
organizations
hire
supervise
lawyers
provide
free
legal
assistance
indigent
clients
year
lsc
appropriates
funds
grantees
recipients
hire
supervise
lawyers
various
professional
activities
including
representation
indigent
clients
seeking
welfare
benefits
suit
requires
us
decide
whether
one
conditions
imposed
congress
use
lsc
funds
violates
first
amendment
rights
lsc
grantees
clients
purposes
decision
restriction
quoted
detail
prohibits
legal
representation
funded
recipients
lsc
moneys
representation
involves
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
welfare
law
interpreted
lsc
government
restriction
prevents
attorney
arguing
state
statute
conflicts
federal
statute
either
state
federal
statute
terms
application
violative
constitution
lawyers
employed
new
york
city
lsc
grantees
together
private
lsc
contributors
lsc
indigent
clients
various
state
local
public
officials
whose
governments
contribute
lsc
grantees
brought
suit
district
southern
district
new
york
declare
restriction
among
provisions
act
invalid
appeals
second
circuit
approved
injunction
enforcement
provision
impermissible
discrimination
violation
first
amendment
granted
certiorari
parties
commenced
suit
district
respondents
lsc
petitioner
joined
government
intervened
district
agree
restriction
violates
first
amendment
affirm
judgment
appeals
inception
lsc
congress
placed
restrictions
use
funds
instance
lsc
act
prohibits
recipients
making
available
lsc
funds
program
personnel
equipment
political
party
political
campaign
use
advocating
opposing
ballot
measures
see
act
proscribes
use
funds
criminal
proceedings
litigation
involving
nontherapeutic
abortions
secondary
school
desegregation
military
desertion
violations
selective
service
statute
ed
supp
iii
fund
recipients
barred
bringing
suits
unless
express
approval
obtained
lsc
restrictions
issue
part
compromise
set
restrictions
enacted
omnibus
consolidated
rescissions
appropriations
act
act
stat
continued
subsequent
annual
appropriations
act
relevant
portion
prohibits
funding
organization
initiates
legal
representation
participates
way
litigation
lobbying
rulemaking
involving
effort
reform
federal
state
welfare
system
except
paragraph
shall
construed
preclude
recipient
representing
individual
eligible
client
seeking
specific
relief
welfare
agency
relief
involve
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
law
effect
date
initiation
representation
prohibitions
apply
activities
lsc
grantee
including
paid
funds
concerned
statutory
provision
excludes
lsc
representation
cases
involve
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
law
effect
date
initiation
representation
lsc
adopted
final
regulations
clarifying
cfr
pt
lsc
interpreted
statutory
provision
allow
indigent
clients
challenge
welfare
agency
determinations
benefit
ineligibility
interpretations
existing
law
example
lsc
grantee
represent
welfare
claimant
argued
agency
made
erroneous
factual
determination
agency
misread
misapplied
term
contained
existing
welfare
statute
according
lsc
grantee
position
argue
well
agency
policy
violated
existing
law
lsc
interpretation
however
grantees
accept
representations
designed
change
welfare
laws
much
less
argue
constitutionality
statutory
validity
laws
brief
petitioner
even
cases
constitutional
statutory
challenges
became
apparent
representation
well
way
lsc
advised
attorneys
must
withdraw
ibid
instant
suit
filed
district
alleging
restrictions
use
lsc
funds
violated
first
amendment
see
supp
denied
preliminary
injunction
finding
probability
success
merits
appeal
appeals
second
circuit
affirmed
part
reversed
part
relevant
purposes
addressed
respondents
challenges
restrictions
concluded
section
specified
four
categories
prohibited
activities
three
appear
ed
prohibit
type
activity
named
regardless
viewpoint
one
might
read
prohibit
activity
seeks
reform
upheld
restrictions
litigation
lobbying
rulemaking
involving
effort
reform
federal
state
welfare
system
since
three
prohibited
grantees
involvement
activities
regardless
side
issue
next
considered
exception
allows
representation
individual
eligible
client
seeking
specific
relief
welfare
agency
invalidated
impermissible
viewpoint
discrimination
qualification
representation
involve
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
law
clearly
seeks
discourage
challenges
status
quo
left
decide
part
act
strike
invalid
concluded
congressional
intent
regarding
severability
unclear
decided
invalidate
smallest
possible
portion
statute
excising
proviso
rather
entire
exception
part
dissenting
part
judge
jacobs
agreed
majority
except
holding
proviso
banning
challenges
existing
welfare
laws
effected
impermissible
discrimination
provision
view
permissible
merely
defined
scope
services
funded
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
lsc
filed
petition
certiorari
challenging
appeals
conclusion
proviso
unconstitutional
granted
certiorari
ii
lsc
rely
rust
sullivan
support
lsc
program
restrictions
rust
congress
established
program
clinics
provide
subsidies
doctors
advise
patients
variety
family
planning
topics
congress
consider
abortion
within
family
planning
objectives
however
forbade
doctors
employed
program
discussing
abortion
patients
recipients
funds
title
public
health
service
act
added
stat
challenged
act
restriction
provided
none
title
funds
appropriated
family
planning
services
used
programs
abortion
method
family
planning
recipients
argued
regulations
constituted
impermissible
viewpoint
discrimination
favoring
antiabortion
position
proabortion
approach
sphere
family
planning
asserted
well
congress
imposed
unconstitutional
condition
recipients
federal
funds
requiring
relinquish
right
engage
abortion
advocacy
counseling
exchange
subsidy
upheld
law
reasoning
congress
discriminated
viewpoints
abortion
merely
chosen
fund
one
activity
exclusion
restrictions
considered
necessary
ensure
limits
federal
program
observed
ibid
title
single
particular
idea
suppression
dangerous
disfavored
rather
congress
prohibited
title
doctors
counseling
outside
scope
project
rust
place
explicit
reliance
rationale
counseling
activities
doctors
title
amounted
governmental
speech
interpreting
holding
later
cases
however
explained
rust
understanding
said
funding
decisions
sustained
instances
government
speaker
see
board
regents
univ
system
southworth
instances
like
rust
government
used
private
speakers
transmit
information
pertaining
program
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
said
rosenberger
hen
government
disburses
public
funds
private
entities
convey
governmental
message
may
take
legitimate
appropriate
steps
ensure
message
neither
garbled
distorted
grantee
ibid
latitude
may
exist
restrictions
speech
government
message
delivered
flows
part
observation
hen
government
speaks
instance
promote
policies
advance
particular
idea
end
accountable
electorate
political
process
advocacy
citizenry
objects
newly
elected
officials
later
espouse
different
contrary
position
board
regents
univ
system
southworth
supra
neither
latitude
government
speech
rationale
applies
subsidies
private
speech
every
instance
however
pointed
follow
restrictions
proper
government
speak
subsidize
transmittal
message
favors
instead
expends
funds
encourage
diversity
views
private
speakers
rosenberger
supra
although
lsc
program
differs
program
issue
rosenberger
purpose
encourage
diversity
views
salient
point
like
program
rosenberger
lsc
program
designed
facilitate
private
speech
promote
governmental
message
congress
funded
lsc
grantees
provide
attorneys
represent
interests
indigent
clients
specific
context
suits
benefits
attorney
speaks
behalf
client
claim
government
welfare
benefits
lawyer
government
speaker
attorney
defending
decision
deny
benefits
deliver
government
message
litigation
lsc
lawyer
however
speaks
behalf
private
indigent
client
cf
polk
county
dodson
holding
public
defender
act
color
state
law
works
canons
professional
responsibility
mandate
exercise
independent
judgment
behalf
client
assumption
counsel
free
state
control
government
designed
program
use
legal
profession
established
judiciary
federal
government
accomplish
end
assisting
welfare
claimants
determination
receipt
benefits
advice
attorney
client
advocacy
attorney
courts
classified
governmental
speech
even
generous
understanding
concept
vital
respect
suit
distinguishable
rust
private
nature
speech
involved
extent
lsc
regulation
private
expression
indicated
circumstance
government
seeks
use
existing
medium
expression
control
class
cases
ways
distort
usual
functioning
government
uses
attempts
regulate
particular
medium
informed
accepted
usage
determining
whether
particular
restriction
speech
necessary
program
purposes
limitations
fcc
league
women
voters
instructed
understanding
dynamics
broadcast
industry
holding
prohibitions
editorializing
public
radio
networks
impermissible
restriction
even
though
government
enacted
restriction
control
use
public
funds
first
amendment
forbade
government
using
forum
unconventional
way
suppress
speech
inherent
nature
medium
see
arkansas
ed
television
forbes
dynamics
broadcasting
system
gave
station
programmers
right
use
editorial
judgment
exclude
certain
speech
broadcast
message
effective
rosenberger
fact
student
newspapers
expressed
many
different
points
view
important
foundation
decision
invalidate
restrictions
government
creates
limited
forum
speech
certain
restrictions
may
necessary
define
limits
purposes
program
perry
ed
assn
perry
local
educator
see
also
lamb
chapel
center
moriches
union
free
school
true
government
establishes
subsidy
specified
ends
rust
sullivan
suit
involves
subsidy
limited
forum
cases
perry
lamb
chapel
rosenberger
may
controlling
strict
sense
yet
provide
instruction
program
presumes
private
nongovernmental
speech
necessary
substantial
restriction
placed
upon
speech
oral
argument
briefs
lsc
advised
us
lawyers
funded
government
program
may
undertake
representation
suits
benefits
must
advise
clients
respecting
questionable
validity
statute
defines
benefit
eligibility
payment
structure
limitation
forecloses
advice
legal
assistance
question
validity
statutes
constitution
extends
must
noted
state
statutes
inconsistent
federal
law
supremacy
clause
may
neither
challenged
questioned
providing
subsidies
lsc
government
seeks
facilitate
suits
benefits
using
state
federal
courts
independent
bar
courts
depend
proper
performance
duties
responsibilities
restricting
lsc
attorneys
advising
clients
presenting
arguments
analyses
courts
distorts
legal
system
altering
traditional
role
attorneys
much
way
broadcast
systems
student
publication
networks
changed
limited
forum
cases
cited
government
cases
elect
use
broadcasting
network
college
publication
structure
regime
prohibits
speech
necessary
proper
functioning
systems
see
arkansas
ed
television
supra
rosenberger
supra
may
design
subsidy
effect
serious
fundamental
restriction
advocacy
attorneys
functioning
judiciary
lsc
advised
us
furthermore
upon
determining
question
statutory
validity
present
anticipated
pending
case
controversy
attorney
must
cease
representation
true
whether
validity
issue
becomes
apparent
initial
consultations
midst
litigation
proceedings
disturbing
example
restriction
discussed
oral
argument
well
understood
two
reasonable
constructions
statute
yet
one
raises
constitutional
question
prefer
interpretation
avoids
constitutional
issue
gomez
ashwander
tva
brandeis
concurring
yet
lsc
advised
litigation
judge
ask
lsc
attorney
whether
constitutional
concern
lsc
attorney
simply
answer
tr
oral
arg
interpretation
law
constitution
primary
mission
judiciary
acts
within
sphere
authority
resolve
case
controversy
marbury
madison
cranch
emphatically
province
duty
judicial
department
say
law
informed
independent
judiciary
presumes
informed
independent
bar
however
cases
presented
lsc
attorneys
advise
courts
serious
questions
statutory
validity
disability
inconsistent
proposition
attorneys
present
reasonable
arguments
necessary
proper
resolution
case
seeking
prohibit
analysis
certain
legal
issues
truncate
presentation
courts
enactment
review
prohibits
speech
expression
upon
courts
must
depend
proper
exercise
judicial
power
congress
wrest
law
constitution
source
controvert
principle
constitution
considered
paramount
law
reduced
necessity
maintaining
courts
must
close
eyes
constitution
see
law
restriction
imposed
statute
threatens
severe
impairment
judicial
function
section
sifts
cases
presenting
constitutional
challenges
order
insulate
government
laws
judicial
inquiry
restriction
speech
legal
advice
stand
result
two
tiers
cases
cases
lsc
counsel
attorneys
record
lingering
doubt
whether
truncated
representation
resulted
complete
analysis
case
full
advice
client
proper
presentation
courts
public
come
question
adequacy
fairness
professional
representations
attorney
either
consciously
comply
statute
unconsciously
continue
representation
despite
statute
avoided
reference
questions
statutory
validity
constitutional
authority
scheme
inconsistent
accepted
principles
insufficient
basis
sustain
uphold
restriction
speech
answer
say
restriction
speech
harmless
lsc
interpretation
act
attorneys
withdraw
misses
point
statute
attempt
draw
lines
around
lsc
program
exclude
litigation
arguments
theories
congress
finds
unacceptable
nature
within
province
courts
consider
restriction
speech
even
problematic
cases
attorney
withdraws
representation
client
unlikely
find
counsel
explicit
premise
providing
lsc
attorneys
necessity
make
available
representation
persons
financially
unable
afford
legal
assistance
often
alternative
source
client
receive
vital
information
respecting
constitutional
statutory
rights
bearing
upon
claimed
benefits
thus
respect
litigation
services
congress
funded
alternative
channel
expression
advocacy
congress
seeks
restrict
stark
contrast
rust
patient
receive
approved
title
family
planning
counseling
funded
government
later
consult
affiliate
independent
organization
receive
abortion
counseling
unlike
indigent
clients
seek
lsc
representation
patient
rust
required
forfeit
advice
also
received
abortion
counseling
alternative
channels
lsc
attorneys
must
withdraw
whenever
question
welfare
statute
validity
arises
individual
obtain
joint
representation
constitutional
challenge
presented
attorney
permitted
arguments
advanced
lsc
counsel
finally
lsc
government
maintain
necessary
define
scope
contours
federal
program
condition
ensures
funds
spent
cases
immediate
congressional
concern
support
contention
suggest
challenged
limitation
takes
account
nature
grantees
activities
provides
limited
congressional
funds
provision
simple
suits
benefits
petitioners
view
restriction
operates
neither
maintain
current
welfare
system
insulate
attack
rather
helps
current
welfare
system
function
efficient
fair
manner
removing
program
complex
challenges
existing
welfare
laws
effect
restriction
however
prohibit
advice
argumentation
existing
welfare
laws
unconstitutional
unlawful
congress
recast
condition
funding
mere
definition
program
every
case
lest
first
amendment
reduced
simple
semantic
exercise
notwithstanding
congress
purpose
confine
limit
program
restriction
operates
insulate
current
welfare
laws
constitutional
scrutiny
certain
legal
challenges
condition
implicating
central
first
amendment
concerns
lawsuit
funded
government
lsc
attorney
speaking
behalf
private
client
challenge
existing
welfare
laws
result
arguments
indigent
clients
welfare
statute
unlawful
unconstitutional
expressed
program
petitioning
courts
even
though
program
created
litigation
involving
welfare
benefits
even
though
ordinary
course
litigation
involves
expression
theories
postulates
multiple
sides
issue
fundamental
first
amendment
fashioned
assure
unfettered
interchange
ideas
bringing
political
social
changes
desired
people
new
york
times
sullivan
quoting
roth
little
doubt
lsc
act
funds
constitutionally
protected
expression
context
statute
programmatic
message
kind
recognized
rust
sufficed
allow
government
specify
advice
deemed
necessary
legitimate
objectives
serves
distinguish
title
program
restrictions
upheld
rust
place
beyond
congressional
funding
condition
approved
past
congress
required
fund
lsc
attorney
represent
indigent
clients
required
fund
whole
range
legal
representations
relationships
lsc
however
effect
ask
us
permit
congress
define
scope
litigation
funds
exclude
certain
vital
theories
ideas
attempted
restriction
designed
insulate
government
interpretation
constitution
judicial
challenge
constitution
permit
government
confine
litigants
attorneys
manner
must
vigilant
congress
imposes
rules
conditions
effect
insulate
laws
legitimate
judicial
challenge
private
speech
involved
even
congress
antecedent
funding
decision
aimed
suppression
ideas
thought
inimical
government
interest
regan
taxation
representation
speiser
randall
reasons
set
forth
funding
condition
invalid
appeals
considered
whether
language
restricting
lsc
attorneys
severed
statute
remaining
portions
remain
operative
reached
reasoned
conclusion
invalidate
fragment
found
contrary
first
amendment
leaving
balance
statute
operative
place
determination
discussed
briefs
either
party
otherwise
contested
exercise
discretion
prudential
judgment
decline
address
judgment
appeals
affirmed
legal
services
corporation
petitioner
carmen
velazquez
et
al
petitioner
carmen
velazquez
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
february
justice
scalia
chief
justice
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
section
omnibus
consolidated
rescissions
appropriations
act
appropriations
act
defines
scope
federal
spending
program
directly
regulate
speech
neither
establishes
public
forum
discriminates
basis
viewpoint
agrees
yet
applies
novel
unsupportable
interpretation
precedents
declare
facially
unconstitutional
holding
foundation
jurisprudence
flatly
contradicted
recent
decision
fours
present
case
found
limitation
upon
spending
program
unconstitutional
declines
consider
question
severability
allowing
judgment
stand
lets
program
go
forward
version
statute
congress
never
enacted
respectfully
dissent
aspects
judgment
legal
services
corporation
act
lsc
act
et
federal
subsidy
program
stated
purpose
provid
financial
support
legal
assistance
noncriminal
proceedings
matters
persons
financially
unable
afford
legal
assistance
congress
recognizing
program
serve
purpose
unless
kept
free
influence
use
political
pressures
program
inception
tightly
regulated
use
funds
see
ante
legal
services
corporation
lsc
funds
may
used
example
encouraging
labor
antilabor
activities
litigation
relating
desegregation
elementary
secondary
school
school
system
litigation
seeks
procure
nontherapeutic
abortion
congress
discovered
experience
however
restrictions
exhaust
politically
controversial
uses
lsc
funds
put
accordingly
congress
added
new
restrictions
lsc
act
strengthened
existing
restrictions
among
new
restrictions
one
issue
section
appropriations
act
stat
withholds
lsc
funds
every
entity
participates
way
litigation
lobbying
rulemaking
involving
effort
reform
federal
state
welfare
system
thus
bans
entities
participating
either
side
litigation
involving
statutes
participating
rulemaking
relating
implementation
legislation
lobbying
congress
regarding
proposed
changes
legislation
see
cfr
restrictions
relating
rulemaking
lobbying
superfluous
duplicate
general
prohibitions
use
lsc
funds
activities
found
elsewhere
appropriations
act
see
restriction
litigation
however
unique
contains
proviso
specifying
restriction
cover
funding
recipients
may
represen
individual
eligible
client
seeking
specific
relief
welfare
agency
relief
involve
effort
amend
otherwise
challenge
existing
law
effect
date
initiation
representation
lsc
declares
brief
respondents
deny
provisions
lsc
sponsor
neither
challenges
defenses
existing
welfare
reform
law
brief
petitioner
litigation
ban
symmetrical
litigants
challenging
covered
statutes
regulations
receive
lsc
funding
neither
litigants
defending
laws
challenge
suit
benefits
raises
claim
outside
scope
lsc
program
lawyer
may
participate
suit
explains
lawyers
anticipate
forbidden
claim
arise
prospective
client
suit
may
undertake
representation
ante
likewise
forbidden
claim
arises
unexpectedly
trial
attorney
must
cease
representation
ante
see
also
brief
petitioner
issue
arises
trial
lawyer
discontinue
representation
consistent
applicable
rules
professional
lawyers
may
however
indeed
must
explain
client
represent
see
also
free
express
views
legality
welfare
law
client
may
refer
client
another
attorney
accept
representation
ibid
see
supp
edny
ii
lsc
act
federal
subsidy
program
federal
regulatory
program
basic
difference
two
maher
roe
regulations
directly
restrict
speech
subsidies
subsidies
true
may
indirectly
abridge
speech
funding
scheme
manipulated
coercive
hold
subsidized
position
national
endowment
arts
finley
quoting
arkansas
writers
project
ragland
scalia
dissenting
proving
unconstitutional
coercion
difficult
enough
spending
program
universal
coverage
excludes
certain
speech
tax
exemption
scheme
excluding
lobbying
expenses
found
programs
unconstitutional
exclusion
aimed
suppression
dangerous
ideas
speiser
randall
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
regan
taxation
representation
proving
requisite
coercion
harder
still
spending
program
universal
limited
providing
benefits
restricted
number
recipients
see
rust
sullivan
found
selective
spending
unconstitutionally
coercive
government
created
public
forum
spending
program
discriminated
distributing
funding
within
forum
basis
viewpoint
see
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
limited
spending
program
create
public
forum
proving
coercion
virtually
impossible
simply
denying
subsidy
coerce
belief
lyng
automobile
workers
criterion
unconstitutionality
whether
denial
subsidy
threatens
drive
certain
ideas
viewpoints
marketplace
national
endowment
arts
finley
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
absent
threat
government
may
allocate
funding
according
criteria
impermissible
direct
regulation
speech
criminal
penalty
stake
rust
sullivan
supra
applied
principles
statutory
scheme
relevant
respects
indistinguishable
statute
rust
authorized
grants
provision
family
planning
services
provided
one
funds
shall
used
programs
abortion
method
family
planning
valid
regulations
implementing
statute
required
funding
recipients
refer
pregnant
clients
appropriate
prenatal
services
furnishing
list
available
providers
promote
welfare
mother
unborn
child
forbade
refer
pregnant
woman
specifically
abortion
provider
even
upon
request
rejected
first
amendment
challenge
funding
scheme
explaining
government
without
violating
constitution
selectively
fund
program
encourage
certain
activities
believes
public
interest
without
time
funding
alternative
program
seeks
deal
problem
another
way
said
type
discriminat
ion
basis
viewpoint
triggers
strict
scrutiny
decision
subsidize
exercise
fundamental
right
infringe
right
ibid
quoting
regan
taxation
representation
supra
true
lsc
act
like
scheme
rust
see
per
curiam
government
required
first
amendment
due
process
clause
waive
filing
fee
welfare
benefits
litigation
repeated
claims
restricts
prohibits
speech
see
ante
insulates
laws
judicial
review
see
ante
simply
baseless
litigant
absence
lsc
funding
bring
suit
challenging
existing
welfare
law
deterred
rust
thus
controls
cases
compels
conclusion
constitutional
contends
rust
different
program
issue
subsidized
government
speech
lsc
funds
private
speech
see
ante
unpersuasive
hardly
needs
response
private
doctors
confidential
advice
patients
issue
rust
constituted
government
speech
hard
imagine
subsidized
speech
government
speech
moreover
majority
contention
subsidized
speech
cases
government
speech
lawyers
professional
obligation
represent
interests
clients
founders
reality
doctors
rust
professional
obligation
serve
interests
patients
see
professional
responsibilities
physicians
overruled
part
grounds
planned
parenthood
southeastern
casey
even
respondents
agree
true
speaker
rust
government
doctor
brief
respondents
asserts
cases
different
rust
welfare
funding
restriction
seeks
use
existing
medium
expression
control
ways
distort
usual
functioning
ante
wrong
facts
law
wrong
law
utterly
precedent
novel
facially
implausible
proposition
first
amendment
anything
government
funding
though
actually
abridge
anyone
speech
distorts
existing
medium
expression
none
three
cases
cited
mentions
odd
principle
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
point
critical
analysis
part
usual
functioning
student
newspapers
expres
many
different
points
view
ante
surely
rather
spending
program
created
encourage
diversity
views
private
speakers
case
discussed
nature
television
broadcasting
determine
whether
government
regulation
alter
usual
functioning
thus
violate
first
amendment
government
regulation
even
issue
case
rather
determine
whether
television
public
forum
first
amendment
jurisprudence
finally
passage
cites
fcc
league
women
voters
says
nothing
whatever
using
forum
public
radio
unconventional
way
suppress
speech
inherent
nature
medium
ante
discusses
government
asserted
interest
preventing
public
radio
stations
becoming
privileged
outlet
political
ideological
opinions
station
owners
managers
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
insubstantial
thus
justify
statute
restriction
editorializing
even
worse
invalidating
restriction
conventional
first
amendment
ground
league
women
voters
goes
say
course
restriction
editorializing
plainly
valid
congress
adopt
revised
version
statute
permitted
public
radio
stations
establish
affiliate
organizations
use
station
facilities
editorialize
nonfederal
funds
course
case
regulations
permit
funding
recipients
establish
affiliate
organizations
conduct
litigation
activities
fall
outside
scope
lsc
program
see
cfr
pt
far
supporting
nondistortion
analysis
league
women
voters
dooms
case
nondistortion
principle
also
wrong
facts
since
basis
believing
causing
cases
presented
lsc
attorneys
advise
courts
serious
questions
statutory
validity
ante
distort
operation
courts
may
well
bar
cause
attorneys
decline
withdraw
cases
involve
statutory
validity
means
fewer
statutory
challenges
welfare
laws
presented
courts
unavailability
free
legal
services
purpose
result
ensue
excluding
lawyers
welfare
litigation
entirely
mandated
nondistortable
function
courts
inquire
serious
questions
statutory
validity
cases
courts
must
consider
questions
statutory
validity
presented
litigants
government
chooses
subsidize
presentation
questions
way
distorts
courts
role
remarkable
studiously
avoided
deciding
whether
congress
entirely
eliminate
federal
jurisdiction
certain
matters
see
webster
doe
bowen
michigan
academy
family
physicians
eager
hold
much
lesser
step
declining
subsidize
litigation
unconstitutional
first
amendment
judicial
opinions
produced
lsc
cases
systematically
distort
interpretation
welfare
laws
judicial
decisions
stand
binding
precedent
points
raised
argued
hence
analyzed
see
hagans
lavine
tucker
truck
lines
cranch
marshall
statutory
validity
courts
assume
lsc
cases
remain
open
full
determination
later
cases
finally
troubled
cases
attorney
withdraws
representation
client
unlikely
find
counsel
ante
surely
irrelevant
since
leaves
welfare
recipient
worse
condition
lsc
program
never
enacted
respondents
properly
concede
even
welfare
claimants
obtain
lawyer
anywhere
else
government
required
provide
one
brief
respondents
accord
goldberg
kelly
government
required
provide
counsel
hearing
regarding
termination
welfare
benefits
hard
see
providing
free
legal
services
welfare
claimants
whose
claims
challenge
applicable
statutes
providing
others
beyond
range
legitimate
legislative
choice
rust
rejected
similar
argument
petitioners
contend
however
title
clients
effectively
precluded
indigency
poverty
seeing
provider
provide
services
even
title
clients
worse
position
congress
never
enacted
title
financial
constraints
restrict
indigent
woman
ability
enjoy
full
range
constitutionally
protected
freedom
choice
product
governmental
restrictions
access
abortion
rather
indigency
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
conceivable
argument
made
distinguishing
rust
even
patients
wished
receive
abortion
counseling
receive
nonabortion
services
clinic
offered
whereas
potential
lsc
clients
wish
receive
representation
benefits
claim
challenge
statutes
unable
cases
raise
reform
claim
lsc
lawyer
may
present
difference
course
required
ethical
canons
elsewhere
wish
distort
rather
sponsor
truncated
representation
ante
congress
chose
subsidize
cases
attorneys
subsidized
work
freely
see
ttorneys
providing
legal
assistance
must
full
freedom
protect
best
interests
clients
impossible
see
difference
rust
bearing
upon
first
amendment
question
repeat
whether
funding
scheme
manipulated
coercive
hold
subsidized
position
national
endowment
arts
finley
quoting
arkansas
writers
project
ragland
scalia
dissenting
claimed
effect
client
case
ineligible
lsc
representation
eliminate
ineligibility
waiving
claim
statute
invalid
conceivable
coercive
effect
exists
long
discussion
make
point
embarrassingly
simple
lsc
subsidy
neither
prevents
anyone
speaking
coerces
anyone
change
speech
indistinguishable
relevant
respects
subsidy
upheld
rust
sullivan
supra
legitimate
basis
declaring
facially
unconstitutional
iii
even
accept
first
amendment
analysis
join
decision
conclude
litigation
without
reaching
issue
severability
issue
although
decided
second
circuit
included
within
question
certiorari
granted
points
briefed
argued
nonetheless
think
abuse
discretion
ignore
said
may
consider
questions
outside
scope
limited
order
granting
certiorari
resolution
questions
necessary
proper
disposition
case
piper
aircraft
reyno
think
necessary
proper
disposition
statute
concocted
appeals
bears
little
resemblance
congress
enacted
funding
without
restriction
litigation
congress
funded
limitations
although
party
briefed
severability
denver
area
ed
telecommunications
consortium
fcc
justices
finding
partial
unconstitutionality
considered
necessary
address
issue
plurality
opinion
must
ask
whether
severable
accord
new
york
think
obligation
moreover
exercising
discretion
leave
severability
question
open
fail
resolve
basic
dispute
issue
whether
lsc
attorneys
may
represent
welfare
claimants
challenge
applicable
welfare
laws
indeed
leave
lsc
program
subject
even
greater
uncertainty
one
purport
eliminated
since
circuits
may
conclude
limitation
upon
welfare
representation
unconstitutional
lsc
attorneys
engage
welfare
litigation
inquiry
whether
statute
severable
essentially
inquiry
legislative
intent
minnesota
mille
lacs
band
chippewa
indians
congress
enacted
provisions
within
power
independently
courts
must
strike
provisions
piece
alaska
airlines
brock
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
one
determines
congress
done
examining
perhaps
said
subject
contained
passage
written
chief
justice
shaw
judicial
massachusetts
often
quoted
statute
provisions
mutually
connected
dependent
conditions
considerations
compensations
warrant
belief
legislature
intended
whole
carried
effect
legislature
pass
residue
independently
parts
unconstitutional
provisions
thus
dependent
conditional
connected
must
fall
warren
mayor
aldermen
charlestown
mass
clear
lsc
act
funding
welfare
benefits
suits
prohibition
suits
challenging
defending
validity
existing
law
conditions
considerations
compensations
severed
congress
lsc
act
intended
provide
high
quality
legal
assistance
otherwise
unable
afford
adequate
legal
counsel
program
time
kept
free
influence
use
political
pressures
dozen
times
congress
made
decision
certain
activities
funded
without
crippling
lsc
program
political
pressures
see
reapportionment
litigation
local
state
federal
lobbying
class
action
lawsuits
training
programs
inter
alia
boycotts
picketing
demonstrations
litigation
respect
abortion
severability
question
essentially
whether
without
restriction
today
invalidates
permission
conducting
welfare
litigation
accorded
far
appears
best
evidence
structure
statute
think
answer
must
cases
stated
excepting
proviso
found
unconstitutional
substantive
provisions
qualifies
stand
hold
otherwise
extend
scope
law
embrace
situations
legislature
passing
statute
terms
expressly
excluded
frost
corporation
see
also
davis
wallace
excepting
provision
statute
found
unconstitutional
courts
generally
hold
work
enlargement
scope
operation
provisions
provision
enacted
intended
qualify
restrain
frankly
doubt
whether
approach
followed
consistently
enough
called
general
rule
ever
instance
appropriate
strike
restriction
welfare
benefits
suits
void
altogether
subsection
prohibits
involvement
three
types
activities
respect
welfare
reform
lobbying
rulemaking
litigation
proscriptions
using
lsc
funds
participate
welfare
lobbying
rulemaking
superfluous
since
described
subsections
withhold
lsc
funds
activities
generally
unique
subsection
thing
achieves
limit
litigation
remove
limit
repeal
subsection
altogether
thus
eliminate
significant
quid
pro
quo
legislative
compromise
authority
rewrite
statute
give
effect
altogether
different
congress
agreed
railroad
retirement
bd
alton
quoted
carter
carter
coal
illuminating
speculate
cases
decided
congress
enacted
without
proviso
prescribing
general
ban
litigation
lobbying
rulemaking
involving
effort
reform
federal
state
welfare
system
positions
parties
us
reversed
lawyers
arguing
statute
permitted
representation
individual
welfare
claimants
challenge
existing
law
venture
say
endorse
argument
perhaps
stirring
language
importance
aid
welfare
applicants
unwillingness
presume
without
clear
indication
congress
want
eliminate
little
doubt
context
find
current
first
amendment
musings
unpersuasive
find
today
today
decision
quite
simply
inexplicable
basis
prior
law
difference
rust
present
case
former
involved
distortion
say
refusal
subsidize
normal
work
doctors
latter
involves
distortion
say
refusal
subsidize
normal
work
lawyers
decision
displays
improper
special
solicitude
profession
also
displays
think
fondness
reform
courts
making
innumerable
social
judgments
constitutional
imperatives
prompted
congress
restrict
publicly
funded
litigation
sort
says
today
unprecedented
indeed
previously
rejected
interpretation
first
amendment
allow
restriction
add
insult
injury
permits
stand
judgment
awards
general
litigation
funding
statute
contain
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
together
velazquez
et
also
certiorari