Subsidized speech and the Legal Services Corporation: The constitutionality of defunding constitutional challenges to the welfare system

In 1996, Congress passed legislation restricting lawyers receiving federal fiends through the Legal Services Corporation from undertaking litigation c hallenging the constitutionality of welfare laws. Two circuits of the court of appeals have since rendered conflicting decisions on the constitutional ity of this restriction. In this Note, Megan Lewis argues that this constra int on Legal Services grantees constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimi nation under the First Amendment, Lewis's argument is grounded on the principle that the Constitution limits the government's power to restrict speech that it subsidizes. She suggests that the public forum doctrine, when analyzed in light of the Supreme Court 's decisions in Rosen-berger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virg inia and Rust v. Sullivan, provides a framework for distinguishing between permissible and impermissible restrictions on Legal Services grantees. Buil ding on the terminology of Professor Robert Post, Lewis asserts that Legal Services lawyers act independently,when they serve their clients, rather th an as instrumentalities of the state, and hence do not fall within the gove rnment's managerial control. Moreover, the restriction infringes on their c lients' First Amendment right to participate in litigation, itself a protec ted public forum. Lewis concludes that the restriction impermissibly interf eres with protected speech and skews the debate within the public forum cre ated by the subsidy for Legal Services.