Recent Development by Alison A. Bradley
Shintech, a chemical manufacturer, proposed the construction of a plant in the small town of Convent in St. James Parish, Louisiana in 1996. A group of residents formed St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment (St. James Citizens) to oppose the proposed project on the grounds that the low-income and predominately African-American community already accommodated an inordinate amount of industry. St. James Citizens enlisted the services of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic (TELC) in November 1996, as permitted by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XX allowing for limited legal representation by law students. Continued resistance to the construction of the proposed plant eventually led Shintech to abandon the St. James location and provoked significant criticism of the TELC from political and business interests. Allegedly in response to pressure from these business and political leaders, the Louisiana Supreme Court initiated an official investigation of the TELC and other Louisiana law school clinics in 1997. The Supreme Court subsequently amended Rule XX, effective April 15, 1999, to tighten the indigence requirements for both individuals and community organizations and to prohibit student-attorneys from representing clients if any person associated with the clinic initiated the client contact. In response to these amendments, a group of community organizations, student associations, law professors, and law students filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that Rule XX, as amended, “impermissibly suppresse[d] Plaintiffs' freedoms of speech and association as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” The district court granted the Supreme Court's motions for dismissal on July 27, 1999, ruling that “the complaint failed to establish the deprivation of any cognizable federal right.” The court further asserted that the motivation of the Supreme Court, even if inappropriate, “could not transform an otherwise permissible action into a constitutional violation.” On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the new indigence requirements and solicitation restrictions of Rule XX did not implicate free speech interests or violate the Equal Protection Clause, and that amendments to the Rule did not constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) v. Supreme Court, 252 F.3d 781, 788-95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 464 (2001).
About the Author
Alison A. Bradley.
Citation
76 Tul. L. Rev. 1173 (2002)