Copyright 2000 Times Publishing Company
St.
Petersburg Times
June 08, 2000, Thursday, 0 South Pinellas
Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; EDITORIALS; Pg. 16A
LENGTH: 586 words
HEADLINE:
The poor deserve legal justice
BODY:
Ever
since the Republicans took over Congress, they've had the Legal Services
Corp. in their sights. The program that provides legal services to the
poor has been a bane to conservative lawmakers who can't stand the idea that
prisoners, migrant farm workers and ghetto dwellers should have greater access
to justice.
Despite the best efforts of the Republican leadership, LSC
so far has escaped being completely dismantled. But by deeply cutting
appropriations and imposing unreasonable restrictions on whom LSC may represent
and what work it can do, Congress has limited access to the courthouse door for
America's poor. Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to wrench
the door back open. The case before the court asks whether Congress can put
limits on the arguments LSC can offer when representing welfare clients and
whether such restrictions violate the First Amendment. It is an opportunity for
the court to affirm its commitment to freedom of speech and recognize the
professional obligations attorneys have to fully represent their clients.
LSC clients typically live hand to mouth, relying on government aid
programs for survival. It logically follows that poverty programs such as
welfare, Medicaid and public housing are often the subject of LSC litigation.
But LSC is a victim of its own success in advocating justice for the
poor. In 1996, Congress passed sweeping legislation to clip the agency's wings.
Under the new rules, the agency was prohibited from bringing class action suits,
lobbying on behalf of clients or representing prisoners or certain classes of
immigrants. In addition, limits were placed on the kinds of arguments LSC
lawyers could make on behalf of clients seeking welfare benefits. While these
federally funded lawyers were allowed to try to secure welfare for their
clients, they were barred from challenging the underlying statutes or
regulations. Hamstringing poverty lawyers in this way is particularly harsh at a
time when states are experimenting with all types of welfare reforms.
The case before the court involves a woman from New York who sought
legal aid after her welfare benefits were cut. In striking down the restriction
on advocacy, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the regulation amounted
to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by "clearly seek(ing) to discourage
challenges to the status quo." Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether
the restriction constitutes viewpoint discrimination or whether Congress has the
leeway to fund only a narrowly self-serving range of legal arguments. The court
should use the occasion to move away from Rust vs. Sullivan, a disturbing 1991
case in which the court ruled that Congress may impose speech restrictions as a
condition of using federal money.
Giving Congress the ability to control
the expression of certain ideas as a condition of funding would allow it to
remove library books and alter course content at universities that accept
federal funds. Of course, this is unacceptable, and it is equally wrong to gag
lawyers representing the poor.
Advocacy for the poor shouldn't be
confined to those interests that comport with Congress'. Just as in the private
sector, poverty lawyers must be free to represent their clients. That means
being allowed to challenge a welfare statute if, in their professional opinion,
it's arbitrary or unconstitutional. By regulating what lawyers might say in the
courtroom, Congress is shielding its lawmaking from judicial review.
LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2000
