The Volokh Conspiracy - Constitutional Challenge to BAPCPA:

The American Bankruptcy Institute reports that a Minnesota firm has filed a constitutional challenge to the bankruptcy reform legislation:

The law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz P.A. is challenging the constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) for allegedly violating the First and Fifth Amendment rights of attorneys and consumers. The declaratory judgment petition challenges BAPCPA's ability to limit attorneys' advice to clients and would stop classifying attorneys as "debt relief agencies." The complaint alleges that the vagueness and overbreadth of the new law creates a chilling effect on the public's right to receive information and advice from attorneys and limits the freedom of expression of attorneys, among other grounds, according to the firm.

The Complaint is available here.

I have not yet had a chance to dig into the First Amendment issues here, so for now I will leave it to others to hash out the strength of the claim.

	[Todd Zywicki, November 15, 2005 at 4:51pm] Trackbacks Constitutional Challenge to BAPCPA: The American Bankruptcy Institute reports that a Minnesota firm has filed a constitutional challenge to the bankruptcy reform legislation: The law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz P.A. is challenging the constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) for allegedly violating the First and Fifth Amendment rights of attorneys and consumers. The declaratory judgment petition challenges BAPCPA's ability to limit attorneys' advice to clients and would stop classifying attorneys as "debt relief agencies." The complaint alleges that the vagueness and overbreadth of the new law creates a chilling effect on the public's right to receive information and advice from attorneys and limits the freedom of expression of attorneys, among other grounds, according to the firm. The Complaint is available here. I have not yet had a chance to dig into the First Amendment issues here, so for now I will leave it to others to hash out the strength of the claim.