Florida League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. William N. Meggs, as State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing disagreement among the Justices concerning “how high the threshold for facial invalidation should be set.”
• recognizing the debate in the context of a First Amendment challenge to a statute, but holding it did not need to be resolved under the facts of that case
• recognizing indirect lobbying activity implicates information interest just as much, or even more so, than direct lobbying
• holding that Providence Tool is still binding precedent
• stating that Supreme Court precedents continue to hold “that contracts to lobby for a legislative result, 7 with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy”
• stating that Supreme Court precedents continue to hold “that contracts to lobby for a legislative result, 7 with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).