U.S. Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Challenging Connecticut Anti-Harassment Rule
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reignited a legal battle on Monday, allowing plaintiffs to challenge Connecticut’s anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rule for lawyers. The court ruled that the plaintiffs, attorneys Mario Cerame and Timothy Moynahan, had standing to pursue their claims that the rule violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Lawyers Argue Credible Threat of Enforcement
Cerame and Moynahan argued that the rule could lead to discipline for statements they made on sensitive topics like race, gender, and religion. The rule explicitly prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct they know or should reasonably know constitutes harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and other characteristics. The attorneys expressed concern that their protected speech might fall under this broad definition.
The appeals court sided with the attorneys, overturning a lower court decision. It concluded that Cerame and Moynahan faced a credible threat of enforcement under the rule. This ruling marked a reversal of U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson’s earlier dismissal of the case in August 2022. Judge Thompson had previously found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “real and imminent fear” of their rights being chilled.
Free Speech Advocates Celebrate Decision
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), representing Cerame and Moynahan, hailed the decision as a pivotal moment in First Amendment standing law. Peggy Little, NCLA’s senior litigation counsel, emphasized that the ruling protects attorney speech on significant and contentious issues, including critical race theory, gender ideology, and religious expression.
This decision drew attention to broader debates surrounding similar rules. In 2023, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a comparable challenge in Pennsylvania, finding the attorney lacked standing to sue. The contrasting outcomes underscore the evolving legal landscape regarding free speech and anti-discrimination rules.
Next Steps and Implications
Connecticut bar officials, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Michael Skold, defended the rule during oral arguments, asserting that protected speech would not face discipline. However, the court’s ruling has set the stage for further legal scrutiny of the rule’s scope and application.
The case, Cerame v. Slack, continues to spark critical discussions about the balance between anti-discrimination policies and First Amendment protections. Legal observers are closely monitoring the developments, as the case could set a precedent for similar challenges across the United States.
