WASHINGTON - A recently filed petition for writ of certiorari is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that members of a mandatory bar cannot be compelled to finance any political or ideological activities with their dues.
The challenge currently before the high court was brought by attorneys Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer and Mark Pulliam, who sued the Board of Directors for the State Bar of Texas alleging First Amendment rights violations under Janus v. AFSCME – a 2018 Supreme Court decision that found that millions of public servants no longer have to pay a government union as a condition of employment.
Texas attorneys are required to join the State Bar and pay mandatory dues.
In their suit, the attorneys argue that they have little to no say on how the bar spends mandatory dues – a violation of First Amendment rights.
They argue that they shouldn’t be forced to fund the bar in order to work in their chosen profession, and that the bar goes beyond its regulatory function by engaging in extensive political and ideological activities.
A federal judge granted the board summary judgment and the case ended up before the Fifth Circuit.
“In sum, the Bar is engaged in non-germane activities, so compelling the plaintiffs to join it violates their First Amendment rights,” the Fifth Circuit’s opinion states.
On Nov. 24, the attorneys filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which states that the Fifth Circuit correctly held that they could not be compelled to support the bar’s political advocacy in matters unrelated to the legal profession, but found itself constrained by a Supreme Court precedent (Keller v. State Bar of California) to reject their First Amendment challenges to all of the other activities at issue because they were germane.
“This Court should grant certiorari and hold that members of a mandatory bar cannot be compelled to finance any political or ideological activities, and cannot be compelled to join a bar that engages in such activities,” the petition states. “Although Keller did contemplate a limited role for a mandatory bar whose activities are carefully circumscribed, nothing in Keller gives bar associations a blank check to use coerced dues to support highly controversial and ideologically charged activities such as those challenged here.”