united-states constitutional-law us-constitution
Can the government outlaw excessive spending on defense counsel?
<p>Suppose a jurisdiction in the United States wanted to pass a law limiting the amount of money that a defendant could spend on counsel, to try to prevent a very wealthy person from assembling a dream team of the best lawyers in the world and getting much better representation than the average person, or making a joke of the whole proceeding, as we've seen in some high profile cases.</p>
<p>I suspect this would not be constitutional, but why not, specifically?</p>

<p><strong>No.</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sixth Amendment</a> to the United States Constitution protects a criminal defendant's right &quot;to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.&quot;</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court interprets this to mean that the government cannot interfere with &quot;the individual's right to spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of ... counsel.” <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/617" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Caplin &amp; Drysdale, Chartered v. United States</em>, 491 U.S. 617, 626 (1989)</a>.</p>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1345" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2)</a> allowed the federal government to freeze assets of &quot;equivalent value&quot; to that which a person is accused of obtaining through health-care or bank fraud.</p>
<p>When the government tried to use that law to stop a defendant from using the money to hire an attorney, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional, holding that &quot;The constitutional right at issue here is fundamental: 'The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire.'&quot; <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-419" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Luis v. United States</em>, 136 S. Ct. 1083, 1089 (2016)</a>.</p>

<p>I don't think we know for sure. There's a lot of strong evidence that such a law would be held to be unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment. See Citizens United v. FEC and the various cases cited there.</p>
<p>The logic is very much the same. In Citizens United, the money was spent to influence an election. Here, the money would be spent to influence a lawsuit. The rationale of the law is pretty much the same, preventing undue influence, preventing the appearance of corruption, and so on.</p>
<p>Here's what the Supreme Court said about expenditure limits for campaigns in Buckley v. Valeo, &quot;The First Amendment requires the invalidation of the Act's independent expenditure ceiling, its limitation on a candidate's expenditures from his own personal funds, and its ceilings on over-all campaign expenditures, since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.&quot;</p>
<p>It would be quite surprising if this were not extended to expenditures for private counsel. But, of course, that doesn't mean it's a sure thing.</p>
