WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) filed an amicus brief encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to take up Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission, which is a case on appeal from the Supreme Court of Texas by petitioner Michael Quinn Sullivan to resolve concerns over potential First Amendment violations in Texas’ lobbying registration law. A copy of the brief can be found here.

“The American people should be able to engage in protected political speech without government restrictions, unless such limits are constitutionally permissible,” wrote the Sens.

“Does the First Amendment permit the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives? With the current split of authority, the answer depends on which court hears the case,” they continued.  

“This case is an apt vehicle for the Court to clarify the level of scrutiny that should apply to lobbying restrictions that impact political speech. This clarity will ensure any restriction on political speech is constitutionally permissible,” they concluded.

An amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, can be filed in order to address concerns and advise the Court on a matter of law that directly affects the case at hand.

Background:

The State of Texas has a lobbying registration law, which requires anyone who tries to influence legislation or administration action by communicating directly with a member of the legislative or executive branch to register and pay a fee. In 2012, the Texas Ethics Commission fined Michael Quinn Sullivan for failing to register as a lobbyist—and pay the fee—before sending emails to legislators.

Sullivan challenged the lobbying statute on First Amendment grounds, first to the Texas Ethics Commission, which rejected his arguments and imposed the fine, then to state district court, which affirmed, and then to the state court of appeals, which also affirmed. He appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which denied review, and is now seeking review in the Supreme Court. There is currently a circuit split about the level of scrutiny to apply to these requirements.

In this amicus for cert, the Senators are supporting the Supreme Court taking up the question of whether or not the Texas lobbying law is unconstitutional the way it is currently written. SCOTUS hasn’t addressed lobbying laws since the tiers of scrutiny were established years ago, so it’s appropriate for the Court to revisit this question. Texas law doesn’t distinguish between concerned citizens and paid lobbyists, but other circuits have upheld lobbying laws under a strict scrutiny analysis.