One hundred nonprofits and foundations joined forces in a friend of the court brief filed in federal District Court in support of four legal service programs in New York City, a private charity and pro bono attorney that are challenging advocacy restrictions on private dollars of legal service programs. The case, Dobbins v. Legal Services Corporation, was filed in December 2001, and seeks an injunction barring enforcement of rules that bar legal services programs from using private funds for lobbying, participating in agency rule-making, claiming court ordered attorneys' fee awards, and filing class actions on behalf of low income clients and communities. This "program integrity" regulation forces legal services programs to create physically separate organizations for advocacy with their private dollars, or deny low-income clients access to this type of advocacy. (See 45 C.F.R. 1610) The restrictions were imposed by Congress in 1996, after the Legal Services Program had been threatened with elimination. They are renewed annually through the appropriations process. During this same time the nonprofit community successfully stopped Rep. Ernest Istook’s (R-OK) efforts to impose similar advocacy restrictions on all nonprofits that receive federal funding. But, as John Edie, General Counsel to the Council on Foundations said in a Foundation News and Commentary article, "At first glance, this case appears to affect only funding that helps provide legal services to the poor. But, in fact, the implications are much wider. The ultimate disposition of the Dobbins case could make clear to Congress that, in the absence of a compelling reason, it cannot place limits on private donations to organizations that also receive some federal funding, particularly when the private donations are funding speech." The amicus brief argues that the legal services restrictions unconstitutionally infringe on the freedom of charitable donors and nonprofits by limiting their ability to spend private funds and target their resources as they see fit. It explains how the "third sector's ability to innovate and to enhance democracy hinges on its ability to act in partnership with government, while remaining free of unnecessary, onerous restrictions." To illustrate how unnecessary these restrictions are the brief explains how the government can (and does) ensure that its funds are not spent on prohibited activities without a requirement of physical separation, pointing out that: "For example, since 1984, federal grant rules have prohibited federal grantees from using federal funds, either directly or indirectly, for a variety of advocacy related activities and costs. Neither physical nor organizational separation is required. Instead, the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-122 defines unallowable costs and establishes procedures for allocating expenses…..There is, consequently, no justification for LSC to require legal services offices to do so much more…" (p. 23-24) The Legal Services Corporation has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association and several legal services programs have also filed an amicus brief. This suit follows the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Velazquez v. Legal Service Corporation, which invalidated a restriction barring legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare reform laws. For more information see the Brennan Center’s fact sheet on Dobbins v. Legal Services Corporation.