A trio of attorneys has appealed U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s summary judgment in favor of the state bar association.
Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer, and Mark Pulliam had filed suit against the Bar, alleging First Amendment rights violations and citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Janus v. AFSCME and Fleck v. Wetch.
The Janus decision affirmed that government employees cannot be compelled to pay dues to public-sector unions. Fleck, challenging mandatory fees paid by attorneys to state bars, was remanded to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration following the Janus ruling.
“Because the Bar has adequate procedural safeguards in place to protect against compelled speech and because mandatory Bar membership and compulsory fees do not otherwise violate the First Amendment, Plaintiffs’ claim that the Bar unconstitutionally coerces them into funding allegedly non-chargeable activities without a meaningful opportunity to object necessarily fails as a matter of law,” Yeakel concluded.
McDonald, Hammer, and Pulliam argue that Yeakel’s reasoning is flawed.
“First, compelling attorneys to join and associate with an integrated bar association that engages in extensive political and ideological activities violates the First Amendment,” their appeal brief asserts. “The Bar puts its imprimatur on numerous controversial issues involving legislation, access to justice programs, race- and gender-based initiatives, ideologically driven programming, and many others. Yet Appellants have no choice but to join and associate with this organization in order to practice their chosen profession.
“This scheme fails any level of First Amendment scrutiny, most obviously because there are a number of less restrictive alternatives that could advance the state’s interests in regulating and improving the legal profession while imposing a much less severe burden on Appellants’ First Amendment rights.”
The attorneys cite Supreme Court precedent, under which “compelled bar dues can be used only for carefully limited purposes such as ‘proposing ethical codes and disciplining bar members.’ But the Bar does not limit its spending to this narrow category. Instead, it uses coerced dues for extensive political and ideological activities. . . .”
This abuse must be stopped.