In a landmark decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has breathed new life into a lawsuit challenging a controversial Connecticut rule that regulates lawyer conduct based on anti-discrimination and anti-harassment standards. The ruling has significant implications for the intersection of professional ethics and First Amendment rights.
On Monday, the appellate court ruled that plaintiffs Mario Cerame and Timothy Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers, have the standing to challenge a state rule that they argue infringes upon their constitutional right to free speech. This rule, enacted three years ago, prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and other protected characteristics.
The case revolves around the plaintiffs’ concerns that the rule could lead to disciplinary actions against them for making statements related to sensitive issues such as race, gender, and religion—topics that are often at the heart of legal, political, and social debates. The Connecticut Bar has stated that their speech would remain protected under the First Amendment. However, the appeals court disagreed, stating that Cerame and Moynahan have a legitimate and credible threat of facing legal action under the rule.
“The court’s decision is a major step forward in upholding First Amendment rights, especially for attorneys who are caught in the crosshairs of this overreaching rule,” said Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which represents the plaintiffs.
The NCLA, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending civil liberties, hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech, emphasizing the potential chilling effect of the Connecticut rule on lawyers’ ability to express their views on contentious and critical issues, such as critical race theory, gender ideology, and religious freedoms.
The legal conflict began when Cerame and Moynahan filed their lawsuit, arguing that the anti-discrimination rule, while well-intentioned, unjustifiably restricts their free speech rights. U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson initially dismissed the case in August 2022, ruling that the plaintiffs did not face an imminent threat of disciplinary action under the rule. However, the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on Monday reversed this decision, acknowledging that the plaintiffs face a real and substantial threat to their constitutional rights.
The Connecticut Bar, which enforces the rule, did not respond immediately to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision. The case has raised important questions about the balance between protecting individuals from discrimination and upholding the fundamental right to free speech.
This ruling comes amid ongoing legal challenges to similar rules in other states. In August 2023, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a similar challenge to Pennsylvania’s lawyer anti-discrimination rule, citing a lack of standing for the plaintiffs in that case.
The current case, Cerame v. Slack, No. 22-3106, is poised to set a precedent for how courts handle First Amendment challenges to state professional conduct rules. Lawyers representing the Connecticut Bar have yet to respond to the ruling, but the outcome may have far-reaching implications for both legal professionals and civil rights advocates across the country.
Read more: