Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): he has suffered an injury-in-fact and can be expected to pursue the First Amendment claim vigorously. See id. at 1011 (concluding that the owner of the adult entertainment establishment could “satisfactorily frame the issues in the case” because he “ha[d] a vested interest in having the [licensing] Ordinance overturned”). 2 Although the First Amendment’s applicability in the area of lawyer-client relations is not well-defined, we recognize that — at least as a general matter — the “right to hire and consult an attorney is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, association and petition.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 953 (7th Cir.2000); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. III. State Bar Ass’n, 389 U.S. 217, 221-22, 88 S.Ct. 353, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967) (<HOLDING>); DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618, 620 (10th 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members (B) holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted (C) holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement (D) holding that a church was entitled to employ only members of its faith (E) holding that a union had a first amendment right to employ a salaried attorney to represent members pursuing workers compensation claims
Output (English): holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted