Worse than terrorists

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government action directed at communication with foreign terrorist organizations is subject to coverage under the 1st Amendment and requires strict scrutiny as content-based regulation.  That regulation included legal advice.

...

...

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, as of 2010, took a position that attorney speech potentially in aide of foreign terrorist organizations, is covered by the 1st Amendment and is entitled to heightened scrutiny.

Yet, state courts suspend and disbar attorneys for criticism of judicial misconduct (as it was done to me and to many more attorneys lately, a separate blog naming attorneys and providing overviews of their stories will follow shortly), repeatedly rejecting the claim that attorney speech on the issue of public concern, misconduct of public officials (judges) is entitled to 1st Amendment coverage and heightened scrutiny.

In my case my 1st Amendment challenges were not even reflected in the order of suspension, my constitutional challenges were simply denied without any explanation or reasoning.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from such conduct is - under the U.S. law, I and other attorneys who took on judicial misconduct, are treated worse than if we would be aiding foreign terrorist groups.

And that is - for doing our job for our clients and for establishing the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review, which necessarily required making motions to recuse and, in those motions, spelling out judicial bias, conflicts of interest,  misconduct or appearance of impropriety.

I think, the issue of protection of attorney speech and attorney independence is now ripe for review of the U.S. Supreme Court.