Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. a., et al. v. United States (559 U.S. 229)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 8, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 559 U.S. 229 · 130 S. Ct. 1324
- Decided
- March 8, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA or Act) to correct perceived abuses of the bankruptcy system. Among the reform measures the Act implemented are a number of provisions that regulate the conduct of “debt relief agencies]” — i. e., professionals who provide bankruptcy assistance to consumer debtors. See 11 U. S. C. §§ 101(3), (12A). These consolidated cases present the threshold question whether attorneys are debt relief agencies when they provide qualifying services. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that they are, we must also consider whether the Act’s provisions governing debt relief agencies’ advice to clients, § 526(a)(4), and requiring them to make certain disclosures in their advertisements, §§ 528(a) and (b)(2), violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys. Concluding that the Court of Appeals construed § 526(a)(4) too expansively, we reverse its judgment that the provision is unconstitutionally overbroad. Like the Court of Appeals, we uphold §528’s disclosure requirements as applied in these consolidated cases. I In order to improve bankruptcy law and practice, Congress enacted through the BAPCPA a number of provisions directed at the conduct of bankruptcy professionals. Some of these measures apply to the broad class of bankruptcy…
Excerpt of a 44,331-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.