WASHINGTON - A petition for writ of certiorari 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 was denied today.
The challenge 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.
In response to the denial, State Bar of Texas President Sylvia Borunda Firth released the following statement:
“We are pleased the Court continues to recognize the longstanding precedent that supports the mandatory bar structure. Thirty other states and the District of Columbia use a mandatory bar structure because it is a proven, effective way to regulate the legal profession and improve the quality of legal services provided to the public. The State Bar of Texas will continue to serve Texas lawyers and the public in fulfillment of its statutory and constitutional obligations.”
Texas attorneys are required to join the State Bar and pay mandatory dues.
The trio of attorneys challenging that structure maintained that they have little to no say on how the bar spends mandatory dues, arguing 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.