United States Eleventh Circuit

In a First Amendment action by a lawyer who advertised the services of his firm extensively, claiming in a broad facial challenge that nine advertising-related provisions of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar were so vague as to violate his due process rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff did not give any substantial reason to believe that submitting a bare script or outline of the advertisements he proposed would constitute a hardship. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement with respect to five of the challenged rules; 2) plaintiff made an adequate threshold showing of vagueness in the application of the rules to his proposed advertisements; and 3) the bar did not bear its heavy burden of showing that it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/17/2010
• Published 06/17/2010

Judges

• MARCUS, Circuit Judge:, Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel