Conditioning bar membership on purchase of life insurance violated First Amendment right to associate

Law Reporter, Jun 2000

Conditioning bar membership on purchase of life insurance violated First Amendment right to associate.

Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, - F.3d -, No. 99-1565, 2000 WL 217893 (1st Cir. Feb. 29, 2000).

The First Circuit Court of Appeals held a bar association's requirement that members purchase life insurance from the association violated members' First Amendment right to associate by compelling payment for an activity not germane to the association's purpose.

Here, Romero, an attorney, was required to join Puerto Rico's bar association. As a condition of membership, he had to purchase life insurance from the association. He filed suit against the association, alleging, among other claims, that being compelled to purchase life insurance violated his First Amendment right of association. He contended that although he could be compelled to join the bar association, he could only be required to support activities germane to the bar's legitimate purposes. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, finding that defendant had not engaged in political or ideological speech, and, therefore, plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated. The trial court reasoned that if defendant's questioned activity does not implicate political or ideological expression, then it is irrelevant whether the activity is germane to defendant's purpose.

Vacating the decision, the First Circuit observed that the U.S. Supreme Court, in cases involving unions, has consistently applied a germaneness test to nonideological expenditures. For example, in Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline and S.S. Clerks, 104 S. Ct. 1883 (1984), the Court held that compelled dues paid to a union could not be used for organizing expenses. The effort to recruit members from outside the union, the Court said, could afford only the most attenuated benefits to union members. Thus, following Ellis and other case law, the court concluded that there is a germaneness requirement involved where payment is being compelled for nonideological activities.

The court also found persuasive policy reasons to apply a germaneness test to nonideological activities. Compelling an attorney to join a bar implicates his First Amendment right to associate but strong public interests justify this intrusion. Requiring financial support for activities unrelated to those interests, however, weakens the justification for intruding on one's First Amendment right to associate. The court observed that without a germaneness requirement for nonideological activities, attorneys, once they join a bar, could be compelled to pay for any activity as long as it did not implicate political or ideological expression.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Plaintiffs Counsel

Robert G. Post, Miami, Fla.