as the facts underlying the statement are true. See Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1438. 3. Underinclusive Myers further argues that both Canon 4.1(A)(10) and Rule 8.2(a) aré underinclusive because Canon 4.1(A)(10) does not apply to statements made prior to attorneys announcing their candidacy and Rule 8.2(a) applies only to attorneys. “Un-derinclusivity creates a First Amendment concern when the State regulates one as pect of a problem while declining to regulate a different aspect of a problem that affects its stated interest in a comparable way.”- Williams-Yulee, 135 S.Ct. at 1670 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court recognizes that a law can violate the First Amendment by abridging “too little speech.” Id. at 1668 (emphasis in original); see also White, 536 U.S. at 783, 122 S.Ct. 2528 (<HOLDING>). However, the Court has upheld laws the could
holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion holding that resigntorun requirement in delaware judges code of judicial conduct did not violate first amendment interests of judges holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts recognizing that the magistrate judges actions effectively severed claims against only certain defendants holding the announce clause of minnesotas code of judicial conduct was not narrowly tailored because it was woefully underinclusive prohibiting announcements by judges and wouldbe judges only at certain times and in certain forms