## Facts

- A railroad labor union (later succeeded by United Transportation Union) maintained a long-running program to assist members with Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) injury claims.
- The union recommended selected attorneys to members and members’ families for FELA representation.
- The union obtained attorney commitments that contingency fees would not exceed 25% of any recovery.
- Union representatives helped injured members reach designated lawyers’ offices, including out-of-state counsel for some Michigan claimants.
- The State Bar of Michigan sued to enjoin these practices as unlawful solicitation and unauthorized practice of law under Michigan law.
- A Michigan trial court initially entered an injunction under a state statute criminalizing solicitation of railroad damage suits; after intervening federal precedent and remand, the trial court entered a broad decree restricting union-member legal assistance, information sharing with counsel, and fee-related arrangements.
- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the post-remand injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may enjoin a union’s member-focused legal assistance program—including recommending counsel, transmitting member-injury information to counsel, and negotiating fee ceilings for FELA cases—consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether an injunction broadly prohibiting a union from “giving or furnishing legal advice” to members is constitutionally overbroad or vague when applied to collective efforts to secure access to courts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court.
- The Court held the injunction violated the union’s and its members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to engage in collective activity to obtain affordable legal representation and meaningful access to courts.
- The Court treated the case as controlled by prior decisions protecting organizational activity to secure legal counsel and pursue litigation.
- Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing the “legal advice” prohibition was invalid but viewing other restrictions as permissible professional regulation.
- Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing certain parts were invalid but opposing vacatur of the entire decree.
- Justice Stewart did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect collective efforts by associations, including unions, to assist members in obtaining legal representation and pursuing claims in court.
- State anti-solicitation and unauthorized-practice rules may not be applied to prohibit an association from recommending lawyers to its members for claims vindicating legal rights, when the activity is part of protected group action.
- A state may not broadly bar an association from “giving or furnishing legal advice” to members when the prohibition sweeps in constitutionally protected communications and cooperative legal assistance.
- Arrangements intended to make representation affordable—such as negotiating contingent-fee ceilings and coordinating access to experienced counsel—may be protected as part of associational activity directed to court access, even if they affect economic terms.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Michigan’s injunction because it suppressed constitutionally protected union-member cooperation aimed at securing effective and affordable legal representation for FELA claims and thereby impaired meaningful access to the courts.


United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Mich., 401 U.S. 576 (1971)