In re Primus: Difference between revisions
→top: add "use mdy dates" template |
→External links: Added US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law navbox |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''In re Primus''''', 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. |
'''''In re Primus''''', 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] protection. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
Primus was |
[[Edna Smith Primus]], the first Black woman to graduate from the [[University of South Carolina School of Law]], was a pro bono attorney for the [[South Carolina]] affiliate of the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU).<ref>{{Cite web |last=DeVelvis |first=Melissa |date=July 16, 2021 |title=Edna Smith Primus - University History |url=https://sc.edu/about/our_history/university_history/presidential_commission/commission_reports/final_report/appendices/appendix-3/primus-smith-edna/index.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218074033/https://sc.edu/about/our_history/university_history/presidential_commission/commission_reports/final_report/appendices/appendix-3/primus-smith-edna/index.php |archive-date=2023-02-18 |access-date=2023-11-12 |website=University of South Carolina}}</ref> South Carolina had a policy of sterilizing certain women as a condition of receiving welfare. Primus sent letters to women who had been thus sterilized, offering the ACLU's legal assistance. The [[South Carolina Supreme Court]]'s disciplinary board reprimanded Primus for violating state bar rules against soliciting business. The South Carolina Supreme Court approved the discipline. Primus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
||
== Opinion of the Court == |
== Opinion of the Court == |
||
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the discipline, ruling that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. |
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the discipline, ruling that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. |
||
The opinion in ''In re Primus'' was released the same day as another First Amendment case relating to attorney solicitation ''Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar |
The opinion in ''In re Primus'' was released the same day as another First Amendment case relating to attorney solicitation, ''[[Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.|Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association]],'' 436 U.S. 447 (1978), which upheld a ban on attorney solicitation of accident victims within 30 days of the incident. The holdings were distinguished on account of the political expression and association elements present in ''Primus'' and absent in ''Ohralik''. |
||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{US1stAmendment |
{{US1stAmendment Freedom of Speech Clause Supreme Court case law|state=collapsed}} |
||
{{US1stAmendment Assemble and Petition Clause Supreme Court case law}} |
|||
[[Category:1978 in United States case law]] |
[[Category:1978 in United States case law]] |
||
Latest revision as of 13:50, 22 December 2024
| In re Primus | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 16, 1978 Decided May 30, 1978 | |
| Full case name | In re Edna Smith Primus |
| Citations | 436 U.S. 412 (more) 98 S. Ct. 1893; 56 L. Ed. 2d 417 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | In re Smith, 268 S.C. 259, 233 S.E.2d 301 (1977); probable jurisdiction noted, 434 U.S. 814 (1977). |
| Holding | |
| Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Stevens; Marshall (all but the first paragraph of part VI) |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Marshall (in part) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist |
| Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV | |
In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.
Background
[edit]Edna Smith Primus, the first Black woman to graduate from the University of South Carolina School of Law, was a pro bono attorney for the South Carolina affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).[1] South Carolina had a policy of sterilizing certain women as a condition of receiving welfare. Primus sent letters to women who had been thus sterilized, offering the ACLU's legal assistance. The South Carolina Supreme Court's disciplinary board reprimanded Primus for violating state bar rules against soliciting business. The South Carolina Supreme Court approved the discipline. Primus appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court
[edit]The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the discipline, ruling that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.
The opinion in In re Primus was released the same day as another First Amendment case relating to attorney solicitation, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978), which upheld a ban on attorney solicitation of accident victims within 30 days of the incident. The holdings were distinguished on account of the political expression and association elements present in Primus and absent in Ohralik.
See also
[edit]- NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
- Ambulance chasing
References
[edit]- ^ DeVelvis, Melissa (July 16, 2021). "Edna Smith Primus - University History". University of South Carolina. Archived from the original on February 18, 2023. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
External links
[edit]
Works related to In re Primus at Wikisource- Text of In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
