Six of the 11 attorneys found by a three-judge federal panel to have judge shopped their clients’ challenge to Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors complied under protest with an order to submit their public comments on the panel’s ruling.

All of the 11 attorneys subject to U.S. District Court Judge Liles Burke’s order to turn over any public statements did so by the 5 p.m. Saturday deadline, but six said they were doing so under protest or objection.

M. Christian King, one of the attorneys for two of the six lawyers who filed objections to Burke’s order — Melody H. Eagan and Jeffrey P. Doss — said his clients had objections on 1st Amendment grounds to the order “as their compliance will have a chilling effect on [their] free speech rights.”

King said the order was also irrelevant to Burke presiding over potential punishment for the 11 attorneys, pointing out that his clients’ firm, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC, released a statement to media but his clients did not in their individual capacities.

The attorneys also objected on due process grounds “as production [of the statements] was ordered without notice or an opportunity to respond,” he wrote in a court filing.

A three-judge panel comprised of administrative judges from Alabama’s three federal court districts found the attorneys “intentionally attempted to direct their cases to a judge they considered favorable and, in particular, to avoid Judge Burke.”

Barry Ragsdale, an attorney representing three of the lawyers involved in the judge shopping allegations — James Esseks, Carl Charles and LaTisha Faulks — issued similar 1st Amendment-related objections to King along with other grounds for the lawyers’ objection, including issuing a short deadline to produce the comments.

He also said while his clients’ employers remarked on the allegations, his clients “did not issue any public statements.

“This Court’s order provides no explanation as to why this Court has ordered this extraordinary production, the relevancy to these proceedings, the legal justification for it, or whether the demand for this information is related in any way to the potential sanctions that this Court might impose,” he wrote.

Robert Segall, attorney for lawyer Scott McCoy, said his client agreed with all of the other objections filed by the five other attorneys.

The order “seeks documents and information protected by the First Amendment; creates a chilling effect with respect to the future exercise of First Amendment rights; violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and orders the production of documents that are not, and should not be, relevant to any matter pending before the Court,” Seagall wrote.

McCoy, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, did not personally comment on the judge shopping allegations, Segall wrote, but he submitted an SPLC statement on the matter to Burke “for the purpose of avoiding delay.”

Burke set hearings for Thursday and Friday in federal court in Montgomery for the 11 attorneys to explain why they should not be disciplined.