Lowe v. Securities & Exchange Commission

23 Citing briefs

  1. Cooksey v. Futrell et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed July 27, 2012

    Instead, the Comments identify instances where he arguably took “the affairs of a client personally in hand” by offering personalized diet advice based on a “client’s individual needs and circumstances.” See Lowe, 472 U.S. at 232 (White, J., concurring); Bowman, 860 F.2d at 604; Locke, 682 F. Supp. 2d at 1291-92. Notably, there are no comments on portions of the website where plaintiff discusses generally his “low carb paleo style meal plan,” his “Diabetic Nutrition Chart,” his recommendations regarding which foods to eat and which ones to avoid, his belief that readers Case 3:12-cv-00336-MOC-DSC Document 20 Filed 07/27/12 Page 18 of 22 19 should find doctors who support the Paleolithic diet he supports, his exercise regimen or his beliefs regarding the risks of over training.

  2. In the Matter of Joel R. Brandes, a disbarred attorney, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed September 8, 2016

    Perhaps the most obvious example of a ‘speaking profession’ that is subject to governmental licensing is the legal profession. Although a lawyer’s work is almost entirely devoted to the sort of communication 71 that, viewed in isolation, falls within the First Amendment’s protection, we have never doubted that “[a] State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in the law, before it admits an applicant to the bar . . . (Lowe, 472 US at 228-229 [citation omitted]). This Court has likewise recognized, in relation to disbarred attorneys that “[t]he courts may, in the public interest, prohibit attorneys from practicing law and that prohibition may incidentally affect the attorney’s constitutional right to free speech by forbidding the giving of advice to clients.”

  3. Hines v. Alldredge, Jr. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to 44 MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed June 10, 2013

    That court recently applied                                                              4 To the extent the Court finds the Lowe concurrence persuasive, it applies only to a relationship with a paying client. Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 233 (1985). Dr. Hines’s First Amendment claim concerning unpaid advice, Compl.

  4. Welch, et. al. v. Brown, et. al.

    OPPOSITION

    Filed November 19, 2012

    Such regulations are constitutional so long as they “‘have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice’ the profession.” Lowe, 472 U.S. at 228 (quoting Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239 (1957)); see also Wilson v. State Bar, 132 F.3d 1422, 1429-30 (11th Cir. 1998) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to rules prohibiting disbarred attorneys from having client contact because the rules “govern occupational conduct, and not a substantial amount of protected speech”); Lawline v. American Bar Ass’n, 956 F.2d 1378, 1386 (7th Cir. 1992) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law because “[a]ny abridgment of the right to free speech is merely the incidental effect of observing an otherwise legitimate regulation.”).15 15 The Supreme Court has long recognized that regulations forbidding harmful conduct do not trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny simply because the unlawful conduct may involve speech: “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduc

  5. Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA & Canada et al v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document

    Filed October 16, 2012

    Some professions necessarily involve speech—such as lawyers or doctors providing advice to clients or patients—and the power “to regulate the professions is not lost whenever the practice of a profession entails speech.” Lowe, 472 U.S. at 228 (White, J., concurring in the judgment). Thus, the government may require professionals to obtain licenses before they engage in certain speech, see, e.g., id., and may also regulate some aspects of licensed professionals’ speech.

  6. Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed August 8, 2016

    Two decades later, the Supreme Court affirmed the fiduciary “character” of the investment- adviser relationship as “requir[ing] frequent and personal contact.” Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 190, 195 (1985).

  7. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed July 18, 2016

    . Two decades later, the Supreme Court affirmed the fiduciary “character” of the investment- adviser relationship as “requir[ing] frequent and personal contact.” Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 190, 195 (1985). Second, and as discussed above, the Advisers Act codified the well-recognized distinction between investment advisers and other financial professionals who provide some “advice,” but whose relationship with the client did not rise to the level of a fiduciary—namely, broker-dealers. The term “investment adviser,” the Advisers Act clarifies, does not include “any broker or dealer” who provides advice that is “solely incidental to the conduct of his business as a broker or dealer and who receives no special compensation therefor.

  8. Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare System et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed May 18, 2016

    By reducing § 1002(33) to a formula instead of addressing its text, Overall fails to “give effect to every word that Congress used in the statute.” Lowe v. S.E.C., 472 U.S. 181, 207 n.53 (1985). Likewise, the court in Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives refused to give independent meaning to the terms “established and maintained” in §1002(33)(A), instead treating them as “a term of art, as used in the statute.”

  9. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldman Sachs & Co. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 491 MOTION Disgorgement, Pre-Judgment Interest, Civil Monetary Penalties and Injunctive Relief against Defendant Fabrice Tourre.

    Filed January 21, 2014

    The Second Circuit has also recognized, however, that any such injunction must be framed so that the defendant “will know what the court intends to forbid.” SEC v. Lowe, 725 F.2d 892, 903 (2d Cir. 1984) (Van Graafeiland, J., concurring), rev’d on other grounds, 472 U.S. 181 (1985). In Lorin, the Second Circuit vacated an injunction because it lacked the specificity required by Rule 65(d), and remanded so that the district court could “describe in reasonable detail the conduct enjoined.”

  10. Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA & Canada et al v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document

    Filed November 30, 2012

    It is true, as plaintiffs explained, that the general power “to regulate the professions is not lost whenever the practice of a profession entails speech.” Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 228 (1985) (White, J., concurring). That is, a professional who is licensed by the State and whose exercise of his profession is comprehensively regulated may, as part of that regulatory scheme, be subject to incidental speech restrictions or compulsions.