Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Amicus Briefs

Greenberg v. Lehocky

CASE SUMMARY

NCLA filed amicus curiae briefs in opposition to a rule creating an unconstitutional speech code for lawyers. Pennsylvania’s Rule 8.4(g) exposes attorneys to discipline—including sanctions that deprive lawyers of the ability to earn a livelihood—if, while in the practice of law, they knowingly communicate in a manner “constituting harassment or discrimination.” Both the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit have repeatedly stated that speech restrictions that discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint expressed are constitutionally impermissible.

Pennsylvania has a long history of regulating both the conduct and speech of attorneys, where necessary, to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. Before Pennsylvania adopted Rule 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2020, it did not engage in viewpoint discrimination when regulating attorney speech. As the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania readily concedes, Rule 8.4(g) imposes viewpoint-based restrictions on speech: it prohibits speech that expresses disparaging views of another on the basis of any of eleven listed characteristics but permits laudatory comments on the same subjects.

In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Greenberg v. Lehocky.

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
Margaret A. Little
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Brief of the New Civil Liberties Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner

March 1, 2024 | Read More

Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Denying Rehearing en Banc

October 3, 2023 | Read More

Brief of The New Civil Liberties Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc

September 19, 2023 | Read More

Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

August 29, 2023 | Read More

Amicus Curiae Brief of New Civil Liberties Alliance In Support of Appellee, Urging Affirmance

October 27, 2022 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Advises Supreme Court to Hear Case Against PA Ethics Rule’s Viewpoint-Based Discrimination

March 4, 2024 | Read More

NCLA Encourages en Banc Third Circuit to End Viewpoint-Based Discrimination in Penn. Ethics Rule

September 19, 2023 | Read More

NCLA Calls on Third Circuit to Strike Down Viewpoint-Based Discrimination for PA Attorneys

October 31, 2022 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Case Closed - July 1, 2021

    Agencies: California Attorney General

    View Case
  • Mario Cerame, et al. v. Michael Bowler, in his official capacity as Connecticut Statewide Bar Counsel, et al.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Case Active - November 10, 2021

    Agencies: Connecticut Statewide Bar Counsel

    View Case
  • Mark Changizi, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Case Closed - September 23, 2024

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services | Office of Surgeon General

    View Case
  • RMS of Georgia, LLC D/B/A Choice Refrigerants v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Environmental Protection Agency

    View Case
  • RMS of Georgia, LLC D/B/A Choice Refrigerants v. Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Case Active - September 14, 2023

    Agencies: Environmental Protection Agency

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.