Identification:
Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez 531 U.S. 533 (2001)
Facts:
Carmen Velazquez, a 56-year-old grandmother, claimed her public assistance benefits were wrongfully terminated. Her benefits were terminated for failure to participate in a job search program without a pre-termination hearing. Without the pre-termination hearing, she was not allowed to present her physical impairment as cause for her inability to work.
Congress enacted the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974. The purpose of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is to distribute Congress appropriated funds to eligible local organizations to hire and supervise non-criminal legal assistance to people financially unfit. In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers who received any LSC funds from litigating any Federal or State welfare issues. The lawyers were prohibited from questioning the constitutionality or statutory validity of existing welfare statues or regulations.
The prohibition made it virtually impossible for lawyers to argue their …show more content…
LSC argued there was no way to help Velazquez without questioning the welfare system. The district court denied an injunction. The court's decision was affirmed and reversed in part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit unanimously agreed that the welfare-advocacy restriction was unconstitutional, but upheld other restrictions. . The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved an injunction. The LSC petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit was wrong in striking down the welfare-advocacy restriction. The USSC affirmed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, holding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of
Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez 531 U.S. 533 (2001)
Facts:
Carmen Velazquez, a 56-year-old grandmother, claimed her public assistance benefits were wrongfully terminated. Her benefits were terminated for failure to participate in a job search program without a pre-termination hearing. Without the pre-termination hearing, she was not allowed to present her physical impairment as cause for her inability to work.
Congress enacted the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974. The purpose of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is to distribute Congress appropriated funds to eligible local organizations to hire and supervise non-criminal legal assistance to people financially unfit. In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers who received any LSC funds from litigating any Federal or State welfare issues. The lawyers were prohibited from questioning the constitutionality or statutory validity of existing welfare statues or regulations.
The prohibition made it virtually impossible for lawyers to argue their …show more content…
LSC argued there was no way to help Velazquez without questioning the welfare system. The district court denied an injunction. The court's decision was affirmed and reversed in part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit unanimously agreed that the welfare-advocacy restriction was unconstitutional, but upheld other restrictions. . The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved an injunction. The LSC petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit was wrong in striking down the welfare-advocacy restriction. The USSC affirmed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, holding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of