Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 238-239, and n. 5.

Although the Court does not address it, this case also presents the question whether a defendant’s interest in representation by nonresident counsel is entitled to any constitutional protection. The clients, as well as the lawyers, are parties to this litigation. Moreover, the Ohio trial judge made it perfectly clear that his ruling was directed at the defendants, and not merely their counsel. After striking the appearances of Fahringer and Cambria, the trial judge stated:

“I will tell you this then, Mr. Flynt. [T]he case is set for the 2d of May, 1977. . . . The only thing is that you will be restricted to having an attorney that’s admitted to practice in the State of Ohio.” Tr. of *446Proceedings in Common Pleas Court, Hamilton County, Ohio, in No. B77-0341 on Apr. 8, 1977, p. 5 (emphasis added).

A defendant’s interest in adequate representation is “perhaps his most important privilege” protected by the Constitution. Poweü v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 70. Whatever the scope of a lawyer’s interest in practicing in other States may be, Judge Friendly is surely correct in stating that the client’s interest in representation by out-of-state counsel is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection:

“We are persuaded, however, that where a right has been conferred on citizens by federal law, the constitutional guarantee against its abridgment must be read to include what is necessary and appropriate for its assertion. In an age of increased specialization and high mobility of the bar, this must comprehend the right to bring to the assistance of an attorney admitted in the resident state a lawyer licensed by 'public act’ of any other state who is thought best fitted for the task, and to allow him to serve in whatever manner is most effective, subject only to valid rules of courts as to practice before them. Cf. Lefton v. City of Hattiesburg, 333 F. 2d 280, 285 (5 Cir. 1964). Indeed, in instances where the federal claim or defense is unpopular, advice and assistance by an out-of-state lawyer may be the only means available for vindication.” Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F. 2d 161, 170 (en banc) (CA2 1966).

In this case there is no dispute about the capricious character of the Ohio court’s action. Notwithstanding the unblemished professional careers of Fahringer and Cambria — in Ohio and elsewhere — their adherence to the same application procedures that they had followed successfully in the past, and their demonstrated familiarity with the issues involved in the litigation, Judge Morrissey refused to allow them to appear pro hac vice.

In full, Judge Morrissey ruled: “Mr. Fahringer and Mr. Cambria are not attorneys of record in this case and will not be permitted to try this case.” Tr. of Apr. 8, 1977, supra, at 3. So far as the record shows, *447this was the second official action taken with respect to the pro hac vice applications of Fahringer and Cambria. In the first, Judge Rupert A. Doan, who presided at Flynt’s arraignment, issued two orders designating both lawyers counsel “of record” in case No. B77-0341, the case eventually assigned to Judge Morrissey for trial. According to Rule 10 (E) of the-Rules of Local Practice of the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, under which Judges Doan and Morrissey were operating, once a designation order is filed, “such attorney shall become attorney of record . . . and shall not be permitted to withdraw except upon written motion and for good cause shown.” Despite Rule 10 (E), no objection to the appearance of Fahringer and Cambria, nor any argument either for or against their request, was heard in advance of the final ruling. In point of fact, nothing in the record identifies a legitimate reason for the judge’s action.

The record does suggest, and in any case the Court’s broad holding would certainly encompass, one explanation for Judge Morrissey’s unusual ruling, but it can hardly be characterized as legitimate. This is an obscenity case. Conceivably Judge Morrissey has strong views about the distribution of pornographic materials to minors and about lawyers who specialize in defending such activity. Perhaps these are not the kind of lawyers that he wants practicing in his courtroom. That Judge Morrissey reportedly referred to Fahringer as a “fellow traveler” of pomographers is at least consistent with these speculations. Cincinnati Post, Feb. 9, 1977, p. 13. Indeed, after denying respondents’ request to have Judge Morrissey removed from the case for bias, the Supreme Court of Ohio without explanation ordered that another judge of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas try the case.

That syllogism had its adherents well into this century. See Curtis v. Bennett, 351 F. 2d 931, 933 (CA8 1965), quoted in Morrissey v. Brewer, 443 F. 2d 942, 946 (CA8 1971): “A parole is a matter of grace, not a vested right. . . . [Discretion is left to the States as to the manner and terms upon which paroles may be granted and revoked. Federal due process does not require that a parole revocation be predicated upon notice and opportunity to be heard.” See also Hyser v. Reed, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 254, 266, 318 F. 2d 225, 237 (1963), cert. denied sub nom. Jamison *448v. Chappell, 375 U. S. 957 (“In a real sense the Parole Board in revoking parole occupies the role of parent withdrawing a privilege from an errant child not as punishment but for misuse of the privilege”).

“The question is not merely the ‘weight’ of the individual’s interest, but whether the nature of the interest is one within the contemplation of the 'liberty or property’ language of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .

“The parolee has relied on at least an implicit promise that parole will be revoked only if he fails to live up to the parole conditions. In many cases, the parolee faces lengthy incarceration if his parole is revoked.

“We see, therefore, that the liberty of a parolee, although indeterminate, includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty and its termination inflicts a ‘grievous loss’ on the parolee and often on others. It is hardly useful any longer to try to deal with this problem in terms of whether the parolee’s liberty is a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege.’ By whatever name, the liberty is valuable and must be seen as within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its termination calls for some orderly process, however informal.” 408 U. S., at 481-482.

Because the “transactions which create the need for the particular legal services in question frequently are interstate transactions,” the practice of law is now regarded as a commercial activity subject to the strictures of the Sherman Act. Ooldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773, 783-784.

Lawyers now have a constitutional right to advertise because “significant societal interests are served by such speech.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 364.

“Multistate or interstate practice by attorneys in this country is an expanding phenomenon. While no published quantitative data specifically support that assertion, a variety of established or verifiable facts exist that make the inference virtually indisputable. First is the increased mobility ... of legal problem-solvers, problem-bringers and hence the legal problems themselves. Second, an outgrowth of the first set of facts is the increasing degree of uniformity of our laws, to a point where we are now commonly confronted with model codes, uniform state acts, federal practice rules (often copied by states) and similar substantive and procedural developments. Third, partly a response to the first two sets of facts and partly a reflection of the growing general complexity of our society, is the gradual change in the character of law practice from a generalist skill to an increasingly specialized one; hence the emergence of lawyers regarded and operating as . . . specialists . . . equipped to cope with problems that transcend jurisdictional boundaries and the legal competence of local generalists.” Brakel & Loh, Regulating the Multistate Practice of Law, 50 Wash. L. Rev. 699, 699-700 (1975) (footnote omitted). See also 19 Stan. L. Rev. 856, 869 (1967).

Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F. 2d, at 170.

Ibid.

See also Judge Soper’s discussion in In re Ades, 6 F. Supp. 467, 475-476 (Md. 1934).

Brakel & Loh, supra n. 8, at 702, and n. 9; Note, Attorneys: Interstate and Federal Practice, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1711, 1716 (1967).

Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., supra, at 168.

Both Fahringer and Cambria are members of the Bar of New York, who specialize in criminal defense and obscenity law. In 1975, the former received the Outstanding Practitioner of the Year award from the New York State Bar Association. The latter received his legal education in Ohio at the University of Toledo Law School where he graduated first in his class. While in law school, he was admitted by the State of Ohio as a legal intern and practiced as such in the Municipal Prosecutor’s office in Toledo.

“No evidence of any disciplinary action against [Fahringer and Cam-bria] by any bar association has been presented to the Court, nor is there reason to believe that any such action is presently contemplated. Both are competent, experienced and qualified in the representation of persons charged with crimes.” 434 F. Supp. 481, 483 (SD Ohio 1977).

Ohio charged that respondent Flynt’s publication entitled “War, The Real Obscenity,” is harmful to youth contrary to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2907.31 (1975). Among his defenses are several based on the Federal Constitution. He claims that § 2907.31 is “void for vagueness and over-breadth, imposfes] an impermissible prior restraint on the publication and circulation of materials protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,” and “bears no rational or reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest.” Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment, in Civ. Act. No. C-T-77-319 (SD Ohio, June 14,1977), pp. 19-21.

In a Constitution for a 'free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 572. Although the boundaries of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment have never been conclusively surveyed, it is clear that they encompass “not merely [the] freedom from bodily restraint” and the rights conferred by specific provisions of the Constitution, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, but also the “ ‘privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.’ ” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 673, quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 845. Among those privileges is “the right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession," Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 492, including “the practice of law.” Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S., at 238.

Fahringer and Cambria in no way rely on the fact that the denial of *453their applications “might make them somewhat less attractive” to clients and might otherwise compromise their professional reputations. Cf. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 348-350.

The only record of the Ohio Supreme Court’s actions in this case is a journal notation that it was “dismissed.” The record indicates that petitioners argued to the Supreme Court in their written submissions that the court could not entertain an extraordinary writ in this matter but that respondents’ remedy lay in a post-trial appeal — assuming Flynt was convicted. The newly assigned trial judge in Flynt’s case, the only Ohio court of which we are aware that has interpreted the Ohio Supreme Court’s actions in this matter, concluded that the dismissal was not on the merits of respondents’ claim of a right to an explanation before being denied admission. It instead concluded that the claim “apparently is an issue that you will have to resolve in the normal appellate procedures if and when the opportunity presents itself.” Tr. of May 10, 1977, p. 16.

434 F. Supp., at 483. See State v. Ross, 36 Ohio App. 2d 185, 188, 304 N. E. 2d 396, 399 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 904.

Rule I, § 8 (C), of the Supreme Court of Ohio Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio allows “participation by a nonresident of Ohio *454in a cause being litigated in this state when such participation is with leave of the judge hearing such cause.”

Canon 3 of Ohio’s Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the indispensability to many modern attorneys of the ability to pursue their clients’ interests across state lines:

“[T]he legal profession should discourage regulation that unreasonably imposes territorial limitations upon the right of a lawyer to handle the legal affairs of his client or upon the opportunity of a client to obtain the services of a lawyer of his choice in all matters including the presentation of a contested matter in a tribunal before which the lawyer is not permanently admitted to practice.”

Rule 10(E) of the Rules of Local Practice of the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, requires “[a]ny attorney who accepts private employment in any criminal case” to file a specified form. Once that form' is endorsed by a judge, as occurred here, the attorney becomes “attorney of record” who “shall not be permitted to withdraw except upon written motion and for good cause shown.” See n. 3, supra.

State v. Boss, supra.

“lt has, however, been generally recognized that an attorney not admitted to practice in Ohio, but in good standing in another state, may be specially admitted for the purpose of representing a person in a particular case, be it civil or criminal. Whether or not so to specially permit an attorney not admitted to practice in Ohio, but admitted to practice and in good standing in another state, to represent a party in a particular action, is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, we must • determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion in this instance.” State v. Ross, supra, at 188, 304 N. E. 2d, at 399.

Other appellate courts have held or stated in dicta that admission pro hac vice to trial courts within their jurisdiction may not be denied without *455cause. In re Evans, 524 F. 2d 1004, 1007 (CA5 1975) (denial inappropriate except upon showing of unethical conduct); McKenzie v. Burris, 255 Ark. 330, 344, 500 S. W. 2d 357, 36,6 (1973) (trial court may not impose “arbitrary numerical limitation on the number of [pro hac vice] appearances by an attorney” with 'expertise in the relevant area). See also Munoz v. United, States District Court, 446 F. 2d 434 (CA9 1971); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jackson, 235 F. 2d 390, 393 (CA10 1956); Brown v. Wood, 257 Ark. 252, 258, 516 S. W. 2d 98, 102 (1974). The requirement of' cause has even greater support where, as here, see n. 3, sufra, an out-of-state attorney in a criminal case has previously been made counsel of record by order of a trial court. Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119, 123 (CA3 1950); State v. Kavanaugh, 52 N. J. 7, 18, 243 A. 2d 225, 231 (1968); Smith v. Brock, 532 P. 2d 843, 850 (Okla. 1975).

36 Ohio App. 2d, at 190-201, 304 N. E. 2d, at 401-406.

This “holding as a matter of state law” that out-of-state lawyers are entitled to have a trial judge exercise his discretion — that is to say, to have a permissible reason for his ruling — before he denies an application to appear, “necessarily establishes that [Fahringer and Cambria had a] property interest” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S., at 345 n. 8.

“Property interests ... are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Board of *456Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 577. In this case, the state action that lies at the source of the relevant '‘'understanding” or implied promise is multifaceted. In addition to the consistent past practice of Ohio trial judges, which is analogous to the course of administrative conduct found sufficient in Morrissey, that promise is supported by state and local rules and case law.

“[T]he right to procedural due process ... is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. While the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in federal employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards. As our cases have consistently recognized, the adequacy of statutory procedures for deprivation of a statutorily created property interest must be analyzed in constitutional terms.” Arnett, 416 U. S., at 167 (Powell, J., concurring in part) (footnote omitted).

See Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693; Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215. I continue to adhere to the view that “neither the Bill of Rights nor the *457laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. The relevant state laws either create property rights, or they curtail the freedom of the citizen who must live in an ordered society. Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, and surely not the exclusive source.” Id., at 230 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Although the Court cites three previous summary dispositions by this Court in favor of its decision, two have nothing whatsoever to do with pro hac vice admissions. Both are concerned with rules preventing out-of-state lawyers from setting up permanent practices in States where they were not licensed. Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 414 U. S. 1034, summarily aff’g 359 F. Supp. 549 (ED Va. 1973); Kovrak v. Oinsburg, 358 U. S. 52, dismissing, for want of substantial federal question, appeal from 392 Pa. 143, 139 A. 2d 889 (1958). The third case involved a challenge on substantive due process grounds to a rule of the Supreme Court of Illinois that placed decisions on pro hac vice applications in the trial court’s discretion. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Beatty, 423 U. S. 1009, summarily aff’g 400 F. Supp. 234 (SD Ill. 1975). So far as the opinion in the District Court in that case indicates, however, there was no claim that the rule had been applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

Petitioners also contend that the injunction violates principles of abstention embodied in our decisions in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971); Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117 (1951); and Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 (1943). Because of our disposition of the merits of this case, we think it unnecessary to consider that issue.

The practice of law in Ohio is governed by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4705.01 (1977), which provides in pertinent part:

“No person shall be permitted to practice as an. attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which he is not a party concerned, either by using or subscribing his own name, or the name of another person, unless he has been admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its prescribed and published rules.”

Rule I, § 8 (C), of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio determines when out-of-state attorneys may-appear pro hac vice in Ohio courts:

“Admission Without Examination.

“(C) An applicant under this section shall not engage in the practice of law in this state prior to the filing of his application. To do so constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and will result in a denial of the application. This paragraph (C) does not apply to participation by a nonresident of Ohio in a cause being litigated in this state when such participation is with leave of the judge hearing such cause.”

The District Court found that Fahringer and Cambria had appeared on behalf of Flynt and Hustler Magazine in other criminal proceedings before the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, apparently without being required to do more than they did here. 434 F. Supp. 481, 483 (SD Ohio *4401977). This prior experience might explain why the local lawyer did not alert the court that Fahringer and Cambria were not admitted to practice in Ohio, but it does not indicate that the first Judge’s endorsement of the entry form, without more, constituted leave for a pro hac vice appearance. Although the District Court found that the manner in which Fahringer and Cambria sought leave for an appearance comported with the “customary” procedures of the court, ibid., it made no finding that these lawyers justifiably relied on any official explanation of these procedures or had any other ground for believing -they actually had received leave of the court to appear.

The dissenting opinion relies heavily on dictum in Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F. 2d 161 (CA2 1966). The facts of that case were different from those here, and the precise holding of the court was quite narrow. The court ruled that where a client sought to defend on the ground of illegality against an out-of-state attorney’s action for his fee, and where the illegality stemmed entirely from the failure of the client’s in-state attorneys to obtain leave for the out-of-state attorney to appear in Federal District Court, the client would not be allowed to escape from the contract through his own default. Id., at 168-169. The balance of the opinion, which declared that “under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution no state can prohibit a citizen with a federal claim or defense from engaging an out-of-state lawyer to collaborate with an in-state lawyer and give legal advice concerning it within the state,” id., at 170, must be considered to have been limited, if not rejected entirely, by Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Beatty, 423 U. S. 1009 (1975).

The dissenting opinion also suggests that a client’s interest in having out-of-state counsel is implicated by this decision. Post, at 445-446, n. 2. The court below, however, “did not reach the issue of whether the constitutional rights of Flynt and Hustler Magazine had also been violated,” 574 F. 2d 874, 877 (CA6 1978), recognizing as it did that a federal-court injunction enjoining a state criminal prosecution on a ground that could be asserted by the defendant in the state proceeding would conflict with this Court’s holding in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971).

The dissenting opinion of MR. Justice SteveNS argues that a lawyer’s right to “pursu[e] his calling is protected by the Due Process Clause . . . when he crosses the border” of the State that licensed him, post, at 445. Mr. Justice SteveNS identifies two “protected” interests that “reinforce” each other. These are said to be “the 'nature’ of the interest in pro hac vice admissions [and] the 'implicit promise’ inhering in Ohio custom.” Post, at 456.

The first of these lawyer’s “interests” is described as that of “discharging [his] responsibility for the fair administration of justice in our adversary system.” Post, at 453. As important as this interest is, the suggestion that the Constitution assures the right of a lawyer to practice in the court of every State is a novel one, not supported by any authority brought to our attention. Such an asserted right flies in the face of the traditional authority of state courts to control who may be admitted to practice before them. See Norfolk & Western B. Co. v. Beatty, supra; ABA Special Committee on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, Problems and Recommendations in Disciplinary Enforcement 13-14 (Final Draft 1970). If accepted, the constitutional rule advanced by the dissenting opinion would prevent those States that have chosen to bar all pro hac vice appearances from continuing to do so, see, e. g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. §§ 6062, 6068 (West 1974 and Supp. 1978); and would undermine the policy of those States which do not extend reciprocity to out-of-state lawyers, see, e. g., Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 28 (c) I; Fla. Rules of the Sup. Ct. Relating to Admissions to the Bar, Art. I, § 1.

The second ground for due process protection identified in the dissenting opinion is the “implicit promise” inherent in Ohio’s past practice in “assur[ing] out-of-state practitioners that they are welcome in Ohio’s courts. . . .” Post, at 456, 453. We recall no other claim that a constitutional right can be created — as if by estoppel — merely because a wholly and expressly discretionary state privilege has been granted generously in the past. That some courts, in setting the standards for admission within their jurisdiction, have required a showing of cause before denying leave to appear pro hac vice provides no support for the proposition that the Constitution imposes this “cause” requirement on state courts that have chosen to reject it.