First Circuit questions legal aid funding across entire US

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Courthouse News Service

January 5, 2026


BOSTON (CN) — A legal client upset that Maine confiscated the interest earned on his retainer funds to support “queer justice” and pro-immigration advocacy told the First Circuit Monday the practice violated his First Amendment rights. And while the court seemed somewhat sympathetic at oral argument, it also appeared worried about disturbing a key source of legal aid funding across the country. The judges seemed to be exploring some way to resolve the case while ducking the constitutional issue.

Like almost every state, Maine requires the interest on lawyers’ trust accounts — IOLTA for short — be donated to support bar foundations and legal aid organizations. But Maine goes further and allocates some of the funds to lobbying and advocacy groups that, according to plaintiff E. David Wescott, support “left-wing” causes. Wescott claims the money is being used for “queer justice,” pro-immigration activities, advocacy for Medicaid expansion and promoting “racial equity.”

In 1993, the First Circuit upheld an IOLTA program against a similar First Amendment challenge. That case relied on a 1977 Supreme Court decision that allowed public-sector unions to force employees to pay union dues even if they didn’t support the union. In 2018, however, the Supreme Court overruled its 1977 decision in a case known as Janus. So Wescott claims the First Circuit’s 1993 decision is no longer good law and should be discarded as well.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman agreed that the 1993 case “held that the interest belonged to no one. It wasn’t the client’s money. And that doesn’t hold up after Janus.” But the unspoken backdrop to the new case is that a ruling for the plaintiff could upend bar and legal aid programs across the country, which have relied on IOLTA funding since changes to federal banking law allowed the first such program in Florida in 1981. Other states quickly followed suit. A decision allowing clients to “opt out” of IOLTA could threaten these resources.

Read more: https://courthousenews.com/first-circuit-questions-legal-aid-funding-across-entire-us/

---

BACKGROUND - Major Lawsuit Challenges Maine’s Mandatory Slush Fund for Left-Wing Groups (August 9, 2024Updated:August 9, 2024)

ORDER (where case was dismissed but had been appealed per the OP) - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_24-cv-00286/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_24-cv-00286-0.pdf

[LiberalArkie]

1. Must be trying to get it to the standard in Arkansas

For every 17,568 low-income Arkansan, there is only one legal aid attorney, yet there is one attorney for every 400 Arkansans in the state.

[in2herbs]

2. If the court is going to be a weasel it should give him his interest and state that if anyone else has such

an issue they will have to file their own lawsuit because this isn't a class action lawsuit. Or dismiss the case entirely because it's not a class action suit.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. The lower court DID dismiss the case in April and they appealed to the First Circuit

I stumbled on this case just today but I know there have been a bunch of RW loon "First Amendment" whining cases over the past decade or so, so here is yet another one, which is not really a surprise.

[snot]

4. Interesting.

In fairness, it seems to me that if the client never consented to the confiscation of the interest, or if the client consented only if it were used for limited purposes excluding those for which it was actually used, then yes, I think the client should have a right to complain, regardless of what the Bar Association might require. The Bar Association's requirements may apply to Bar members, but I don't see why their rules should be binding on non-members and automatically override the property rights of clients who never agreed to them.
I would imagine/hope that the attorney had the client sign a consent form at the time the retainer was paid; if so, I hope the case is thrown out.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. The case WAS thrown out by a lower court and they appealed that.