Quick Facts

• In March 2019, three Texas lawyers sued the State Bar of Texas claiming that under Janus v. AFSCME (2018), it is unconstitutional for an attorney to be required to join the State Bar of Texas in order to practice law. The plaintiffs also challenge Bar programs that they claim exceed the Bar’s “core regulatory functions.”

• In May 2020, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel granted the State Bar’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. 

• In July 2021, a panel of the 5th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the vast majority of the challenged State Bar programs and activities, including the Bar’s CLE and annual meeting programming, diversity initiatives, the Texas Bar Journal, and the bulk of its access to justice initiatives.

• The panel found parts of the State Bar’s and Texas Access to Justice Commission’s legislative efforts were not germane to the Bar’s purposes of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services available to Texans, and therefore use of mandatory dues for those efforts violates the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. The panel also found the Bar’s procedures are not sufficient to allow members to challenge activities they believe to be nongermane.

• The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment, rendered partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded the case for the district court to determine the full scope of relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

• The court also granted a preliminary injunction preventing the State Bar from requiring the three plaintiffs to join or pay dues pending completion of the remedies phase before the district court on remand. The injunction does not prevent the State Bar from requiring membership of, or collecting dues from, other bar members. 

• The State Bar Board of Directors voted on July 19, 2021, to direct counsel to notify the 5th Circuit that the Bar would not seek rehearing of the panel decision. At its meeting on September 24, 2021, the board approved changes to State Bar rules and policies to comply with the 5th Circuit opinion. The changes include updates to the bar’s budgeting, legislative, and expenditure objection processes. On October 12, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order amending the State Bar Rules.

• On November 24, 2021, the McDonald plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

• On December 2, 2021, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel entered final judgment in the case.

• On December 30, 2021, the State Bar filed a conditional cross-petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

• On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case.

• The 5th Circuit panel opinion does not change the longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that supports the mandatory bar. The opinion also does not undermine the fundamental structure and purposes of the State Bar of Texas, which was established by the Texas Legislature in aid of the Texas Supreme Court’s inherent authority to regulate the practice of law.

For a list of all of the McDonald v. Firth filings, please visit this page.

State Bar of Texas (Bennett v. State Bar of Texas)

• Class Action Complaint

• Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

• Defendant’s Motion to Transfer

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Defendant to Show Authority to be Represented by Its Present Legal Counsel

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension to Respond to the Defendants’ Pending Motions to Transfer and/or Dismiss

• Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Defendant to Show Authority to be Represented by Its Present Legal Counsel

• Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss or to Transfer

• Plaintiffs’ Amended Certificate of Conference

• District Court Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension to Respond to Defendants’ Motions to Transfer and/or Dismiss

• District Court Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension to Respond to Defendants’ Motions to Transfer and/or Dismiss (Republished)

• Rescinded Order

• Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for an Extension for Replying to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ ‘Show Authority’ Motion

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Proposed Order

• Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ ‘Show Authority’ Motion; Proposed Order; Affidavit

• Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

• Order for Plaintiffs to File a Response to Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

• Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

• Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue

• Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

• Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer

• Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

• Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

• Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Defendants to Show Authority

• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the Deadline to File a Notice of Appeal

• Certificate of Conference

• Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline

Other Mandatory Bar Challenges

Challenges to other mandatory bars appear below, along with hyperlinks to case filings where available.

State Bar Association of North Dakota (Fleck v. Wetch ) 

Louisiana State Bar (Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar and the Louisiana Supreme Court)

Oklahoma Bar Association (Schell v. Gurich)

Oregon State Bar (Crowe v. Oregon State Bar)

Oregon State Bar (Gruber v. Oregon State Bar)

Utah State Bar (Pomeroy v. Utah State Bar)

State Bar of Michigan (Taylor v. State Bar of Michigan et al)

State Bar of Wisconsin (Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin)

State Bar of Wisconsin (File v. Kastner et al)