In the case of In re Primus, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ACLU lawyer Edna Smith Primus who had been disciplined by South Carolina for soliciting clients. The court held that her actions were protected under the First Amendment as political expression and association. This was because she had not engaged in this conduct for pecuniary gain but to express personal political beliefs and further a wider social cause - challenging sterilization procedures on poor black women which she believed were being performed without proper consent. Therefore, it was deemed that such activities could only be subjected to narrowly drawn regulations designed to serve substantial state interests.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Primus, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations aiming to further political and ideological goals should be granted more protection under the First Amendment than similar activities performed by lawyers in pursuit of economic gain. He argued that this distinction was not supported by precedent or logic. The justice contended that all attorneys, regardless of their motivations or affiliations, should adhere to professional standards designed to protect potential clients from undue influence and overreaching. Furthermore, he expressed concern about a possible increase in litigation instigated not because it is necessary or beneficial for those involved but rather as a means of advancing an organization's political agenda.