High Court Won’t Hear Texas Case Over Mandatory Bar Dues

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review a ruling that the mandatory State Bar of Texas violates the associational and free speech rights of attorneys when it engages in activities not “germane” to improving the legal profession, such as funding legislative efforts.

Plaintiffs Tony K. McDonald, Joshua B. Hammer, and Mark S. Pulliam, three members of the Texas bar, say they can’t be forced to support to subsidize those non-germane activities. They also argue that the state bar makes it too difficult to get a refund of the dues that go to support non-germane activities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, and granted a preliminary injunction that blocked the bar from requiring membership and dues from the plaintiffs until the lower court determines how much of their dues supported non-germane activity.

But it rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that all “ideological” activities were necessarily non-germane, citing diversity initiatives that seek to create a fair legal profession.

McDonald, Hammer, and Pulliam appealed to the high court, asking it to expand the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to find that members of a mandatory bar can’t be compelled to finance any political or ideological activities and can’t be forced to join one that engages in such activities.

The bar officials filed a conditional cross-petition for a writ of certiorari arguing that its speech should be considered government speech and not subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

The case is McDonald v. Firth, U.S., No. 21-800, 4/4/22.