## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 4080 J ON E. K I NGS T AD , S TEVE L EV I NE AN D J AM ES S. T HIE L, P laint if fs -App el lants , v.
S TATE B AR OF W ISCO NSIN , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:09- cv-00216- SLC

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2010

B efore B AUER, R OV NER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e. To pract i ce l aw i n the St ate ofW i sco nsi n, l aw yers m u st j oi n the W i sco nsi n St ate Bar. To j oin the S tat e Bar, l aw yer s m ust pay St ate Bar du es. For m or e than fi fty yea rs , thi s sys te m h as bee n ge n er at in g F irs t A m en d m en t litig at ion, an d th i s c as e is th e latest i ns tallm en t. I n 20 07, the State B ar use d a port i o n o fme mb e r s ’ d u e s t o c o nd uc ta p u b l i c i ma g e c a m-2 N o. 09

- 4080 pai gn with the g oalo fi m proving the p u b li c’ s per cepti on of W i sco nsi n l aw yer s. Peti ti oner s J on K i ngsta d , S tev en Levi ne, and J am es Thiel( col l ecti vel y, the “Obj ecto rs ”) obj ecte d to the S tat e Bar ’ s use o fthei r m andator y dues to fund the cam pai gn as a vi ol at ion o fthei r ri ghts und erthe Fi rs t Am endm ent. Thei r obj ecti on w as fi rs t he ar d b y a s ta te a rbi tr at o r, who r ul ed i n f avor of the S ta te Ba r . The Obj ec to r s appe al ed to a s ta te t r i alc o ur t, a nd the St ate Bar re m ove d thei r appeal to the federa l co urts
. The parti es c on sented to havi ng the i r case hear d by M agistrate Ju d ge Step he n C rocker, w ho u p he ld th e arbi tr ato r’ s dete rm i nati on. The peti ti oner s no w appealto thi s co urt. W e ho ld that to w i thsta nd scruti ny under the Fi rs t A m endm ent, S tat e Barexpenditures fu n d ed bym andatory dues m ust be ge rm ane t o the l eg i ti m ate purposes o f th e State Bar. I n doing so, w e overru le one of t h e a lt e rna tive hold ings of Thielv . StateBa r of Wis consin , 94 F .3 d 399, 405 (7th Cir. 1996), in l ight of m ore re cent tea chi ngs. Because the publ i c i m age cam pai gn at iss u e in th is c as e is g e r m an e t o th os e c on st itu tio n ally l eg i ti m at e pur po se s, ho wev er, we affi r m the j udg m en t in favor ofthe Stat e B ar.

Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d I. P urp o ses, A ctiv ities an d F un din g o f the Sta te B a r of Wisconsin The St ate Bar ofW i sc on sin is a cre ati on o fthe W i sconsin Suprem e Cour t, wh i ch al so gov er ns baract ivit i esN o. 09

- 4080 3

u n d er its ru les . See W is. S. C t. R
. 1 0 .01 . M em b er sh ip in the S tat e Bari s a “co nd i ti on pre cedent t o the r i ght t o pract i ce l aw i n W i sco nsi n. ” Rul e 1 0. 01( 1)
. The st ate d pu rpos es ofthe St ate Bar ar e t o:
a i d the c o ur t s i n c a r r y i ngo n a nd i mpr o v i ngthe a dm i ni str ati on o fj usti ce; to fost erand m ai ntai n on the par t o ftho se engag ed i n the pract i ce o fl aw hi g h i dea l s o fi nt eg r i ty, l ea r ni ng, c o m pet en ce a nd pub l i c s e r v i c e a nd hi g h s t a nd a r ds o f c o nd uc t ; to sa fegua rd the pr o perpr o fes si o na li nt er es ts o fthe m em ber s of t h e bar; to enco urag e the f or m ati on and acti vi ti es ofl oca lbaras soc i ati ons; t o conduct a prog ram o fco nti nuing l ega leducati on; to as si st or supp or t l ega leduca tion prog ra m s a t the pre adm i ssio n l eve l ; to pro vi de a for um f orthe disc ussi on o fs ubj ec ts pe r ta i ni ngt o the practice o fl aw, the sc i en ce o fj ur i sprude nc e an d l aw refo r m a nd the r el at i o n s o f th e b a r t o th e p u b l i c a n d t o p u b l i s h i nf o r m at i o n r el ati ng the r et o ; t o c ar r y o n a c o nt i nui ng prog ra m o fl ega lr ese ar ch i n the techni c alfi el ds of substa ntive l aw , prac ti ce a nd pro cedure and m ake re p or t s a n d rec om m en d at ion s t h er eo n w ith inlega lly perm i ssibl e l i m i ts; to pro m ote the in n ova ti on, devel opm ent a nd i m prove m en t of m eans to del i ver l eg a ls e r v i c e s t o th e p e o p l e o fWi s c o n s i n ; t o th e e nd that the pub lic re sponsibi l i ty ofthe l ega lpro fess i on mayb e mo r e e ffe c t i v e l y di s c ha r g e d. Rule 10. 02( 2)
. To s er ve these br oad purpose s, th e W i sconsin Suprem e Cour t r ule s per m i t the S tat e Barto en g ag e i n a nd fund “any act i vi tytha t i s r ea so nabl y i n-4 N o. 09

- 4080 te n d ed ” t o fu rt h er th e St at e B ar ’s p u r p os es . Ru le 10
. 03 ( 5) ( b) 1. Howev er, the Rul es make c l ea r tha t th e St ate Bar m ay not use th e com pu l sor y dues o fany obj ecting m em ber“forpol i ti calor ideol ogi calact i vi ti es that ar e not re aso nabl y i ntended for the pu rpose o f regula ti ng the l ega lpro fess i on o r im p ro vi ng the qual i ty ofl ega lse rv i ces. ” Id

. Those acti vit ies m ust be fund ed by vol untarydues o r othe r sour ces ofr eve nue. A bar m e mbe r ma y c ho o s e t o wi thh o l d h i s o r h er pro ra ta port i on of du es that w er e budgeted f or act i v i t i e s tha tc a nn o tb e s up po r t e d b y c o mpul s o r y dues. S e e Ru le 10. 03(5)(b)2. To en able m em bers to asse rt th eir right s , t h e Sta te B ar m us t pu bli sh each year a w ri t t e n no t i c e o f the a c t i v i t i e s tha t c a n a nd c a nn o tbe s u p p o r t e d b y c o mp u l s o r y d u e s , i n c l u d i n ge a c h me mb e r ’ s p r o r a t a p o r t i o n o fe a c h. I fa m em be r c o nt e nd s that the St ate Bar has al l oca ted du es i ncor re ctl y betw een com pu l sor y a nd vo l untaryac ti vi ti es, the m em berm ay d em an d that t h e q ue stion be set tled b y an arb itrator. Se e Rul e 1 0. 03( 5) ( b) 3. In thi s ca se, the Objec tor s obj ecte d to the S tat e B ar ’s expend i ture o fm andator y dues on a publi c i m age cam pai gn f orl aw yer s in fi scalyear20 07.

II. The St at eBar ’s Pub l i c Im ageCam paign T h e St at e B ar lau n c h ed th e p u b lic im ag e c am p aig n in re sponse to si gns that s om e ba r m em ber s s aw a need for su ch a pr o g r a m . In th e State B ar’s 1998 M em bersh i p S ur ve y, whena sk ed whatthe y ne ede d fr o m the St ate B ar , 15 o f14 5 m em ber s r espondi ng i nd i cate d that th eywoul d l i k e th e S ta te Ba r t o i m pr o ve the i m ag e o ftheN o. 09

- 4080 5

O nly one othe r need

— lowering cos ts and fe es ofSt ate Bar 1 s e m i na r s, c on ve nt i on s , du e s , a nd s e c t i onm e m be r s hi ps

— rece iv ed m or e com m en ts. l ega lpro fess i on in the com m unity. One m em ber 1 w ro te th at th e Sta te B ar n ee d ed “b et te r in vo lv e m e n t in add re ssing th e publ i c’ s per cepti on o fl aw yer s. ” An othe r com m en ted that“the Bar needs to do m or e t o i m prove th e i m ag e ofl awy er s an d the l eg alpr o fes si o n in g en er al

. ” A thi rd n ote d that m em ber s nee ded “a n agg re ssi ve pu bl i c r el ati ons prog ra m . ” In 2000 , a pol lo fal lS tat e Bar di vi si on, se cti on, and com m i tte e chai rs and l oca lbar presi dents sho w ed that 78% bel i eve d a S tat e Bar

- l ed m es sa ge d ev elo p m en t c am p aig n w as n ec es sa r y . A n d in 2001 , 89 % o fr espondents t o the S tat e Bar’ s Bench Bar su r ve y i ndi ca te d tha t th eyb el i ev ed th e r epu ta ti o n o fthe l ega lpro fess i on had decl i ned i n the eye s o fthe pu bl i c. I n the m i dst o fthes e s tu d ies , t he Offi ce o fthe Ch i ef J usti ce o fthe W i sco nsi n Suprem e Cour t, the Dir ecto r of S ta te Co ur ts, th e L ea g ue o fW o m enVo te r s o fW i sc o ns i n, an d t h e S t a t e B a r e s t ab l i s h e d th e P u b l i c T r u s tS t e e r i ng Comm i tt ee t o a ddr es s i ss ue s o fpub l i c trus t an d c o nfi dence i n the W i sco nsi n j usti ce s yst em . The proj ect had th r ee pha se s: fi r st, t o r es ea r cha nd i den ti fy i ss ue s co ncer ni ng p u b lic t rustand confi dence; se cond, to ga ther i npu t fro m publi c f ocus grou ps; and thi rd, to cr eat e an act i o n pl a n. T he a c t i o n pl a n wa s fi na l i z e d in Oct ober20 00. The Com m itte e r epor ted, am ong othe r poi nts, that j ud g e s a nd a t t o r ne y s ne e de d t o b e e nc o ur a g e d to be i nv o l ve d i n the c o m m uni ty. The Co m m i tt ee f o und that i ncre asi ng publ i c c on fidence i n the j usti ce s yst em6 N o. 09

- 4080 depe nde d o n pe o pl e k no w ing an d t r us tingthe de ci si o nm ake rs and und er sta nd i ng the l ega lpro cess , and that j u d g e s a n d a t t o r n e y s w h o w e r e a c t i v e i n th e c o mm uni tywer e per ce i ve d t o b e m o r e trus two r thy . The C om m ittee recom m en d ed i nc reased j ud ici al and attorney parti ci pati on in and connecti on t o thei r com m unit i es. The St ate Bar f or m ed a Publ i c I m age Com m i tte e t o add re ss som e o fthes e co ncerns. It s pu rpos e was to “e duca te the pub l i c ab o utthe l eg alpr o fes si o n a nd devel op a com m on them e about how l aw yer s co ntribute to the com m unity. ” Pres i dent’s M ess age , 74 W i s. L aw . 1 1 ( No v . 2 0 0 1 )
. T h e e ff o r tf o c u s e d o n t h e e x p e r t i s e , p r o b l e msol vi ng skills , a nd se rv i ce t o the c om m unity o fW i sconsin l aw yer s. In20 02 th e P u b lic Im ag e C om m itt ee u n ve iled a p u b lic im ag e c am p ai g n th at ca rrie d th e s log an “W isc on sin Law yer s. Ex pert A dvis er s. Se rv i ng You. ” Ex am ples of the m ate ri al s deve l oped and ai re d i ncl ud e:

• tel evi sio n spots featuri ng l aw yer s fro m the Green Bay and Fo x Val l ey ar ea i nvolved i n a num bero f com m unity pr oj ects to i m prove the l i ves ofse ni or citizens and th e H m ong p op ulation, elem en tary and high schoo lstud ents i nvol ved i n m ocktr i al eff or ts, a nd o the rc o mm unity g ro up s a nd act i vi ti es;

• t e l e v i s i o n s p o t s fe a t u r i n gDa n e C o u n t y a r e a l a wyer s v olu n teering the i r ti m e t o the Dane County B ar A ssociation’s Fam il y L aw A ssistan ce C e nt er; an d

• televisi on sp ots featu ring La C rosse an d Ea u C lai re ar ea l awy er s us i ngthe i r l eg als k i l l s to a ss i sttheN o. 09

- 4080 7 La Cr o s s e Co un t y Ba r ’ s F r e e Le g a l Cl i ni c , a f re e l eg alc l i ni c f o r ho m el es s veter an s i n To m ah, a nd th e L a C rosse area bar’s su p p ort for“Ji m ’s Groc ery Bag, ” el ev enLa Cr o ss e S ch o o lDi st r i ctf o o d pantr i es. I n fi scalye ar20 07

— the yearon w hi ch the fi scalyear20 09 r ed u c tio n w as ba se d an d th e fo c u s o f th is law su it

— the St at e B ar sp en t $97,88 6 of m an d at or y d u es on th e p u b lic im age cam p aign. Th at am ou nt ed to $5. 16 p er m em ber.

III
. P roc eedin gs B efo re the A rbitra to r an d th e D istrict C o urt P urs ua nt to W iscons in Sup rem e C ou rt Ru le 10. 03(5)(b), th e O bj ec to r s’ c l ai m was fi r sthe ar d b y a n a rbi tr at o r . The Obj ecto rs ar gued that the S tate Bar’ s e xpend i ture o f m an d ato rydues o n the publi c i m age cam pai gn vi ol ate d th ei r r i g ht s unde r the F i r stAm en dm en t be ca us e th e expend i ture s were not re lat ed to ei therthe re gul ati on of l aw yer s or i m proving the quali ty of l ega l se rv ices , and w er e i deol ogi cali n nature
. Cauti oni ng tha t under the S tat e Barby l aw s he had “no a u th ori ty to add , subtr ac t, setas i de ordel ete fro m any Suprem e Cour t Rule o r S ta te Ba r b y l aw, ” th e arbi tr at o r r ul ed i n f avor ofthe St ate Ba r . Arb

. De c . a t6 , c i t i ngWi s . S t a t e Ba r By l aw s, A rt
. I, S ec. 5(e ) ( vi )
. A l though the arbi tr ato r express ed “doubts a b ou t the ‘ ger m aneness ’ o fthe pu bl i c i m age cam paign ,” he co ncl ud ed that havi ng a goo d reputati on was a p ro per profess i onali nter estf orany professio n an d th at th e p u b lic im ag e c a m p aig n ap p ea re d to fit i nto the S tat e Bar ’ s s tatutor y purpose s t o “pro vi de a f o r um f o r the di sc us si o n ofs ubj ec ts pe r ta i ni ngt o the pr ac ti ce of law , . . . a nd the r el at i o ns o fthe Ba r t o the8 N o. 09

- 4080

The di s t ri c tc our tal s o s ugg ested thataft err em oval, the 2 Fe der al Arbi tratio n Ac twoul d co nt ro l r evi ew ofthe arbi t ra t or ’ s dec i s i on. The poi nt i s l ar ge l y m ootbe c aus e the s t anda rds u ndere i the r the W i s c ons i n o r fede ra l arbi t ra t i on s t a t ut e s a r e i de nt i c a l

. S e e W i s . S t a t
. § 7 88. 1 0 ( 1 ) ( d) ; 9 U. S

. C. § 10 (a)( 4). H ow ev er, the F A A w a s no t inv ok ed b y the p arties, and our j uris dicti on is based on the federal quest ion rai se d by th e O b je c t or s , no tthe FAA, whi c h i s no tani ndepe nden t so u rc e o f ju ri sd ic tio n . E.g. , M i nor v. Prudent i alSec uri t i es, Inc. , 94 F. 3d 1 10 3, 11 04

- 05 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96 )
. Bec aus e the s t at e arbi t ra t or (co n tin u ed ...) pu bl i c and to publi sh i nfo rm ati on rela ting ther eto
. ” S ee R ule 10.02(2). The arbi tr ato r, however, ul ti m ate l y was co nvi nced that “ge rm aneness ” was i rrelevant unle ss the c hal l enged expend i ture was pol i ti calo r i deol ogi cal. S ee A rb. Dec. at 6- 7, c i tingRul e 10
. 03 ( 5) ( b) 1. The Obj ec to r s di d no t a r g ue th atthe publi c re l at i o ns c ampai g n was po l i ti ca l, a nd the arbi tr at o r co ns i der ed but r ej ec te d th e Obj ec to rs’ ar g um en t t h at th e p u b lic im ag e c am p aig n w as id eo log ica l. The a rbi tr at o r thus f o und tha t the S ta te Ba r ha d de m o nst r at ed th atthe pub l i c i m ag e ca m pai g n w as wi th i n the lan gu ag e a n d int en t o f th e a p p lica b le W isc on sin Suprem e Cour t Rul es and that the Obj ecto rs c ou l d be re quir ed to pay thei r shar e o fi ts cos ts. T he Ob j ectors sou gh t j ud ici al r eview o f t h e arbitrator’s dec i si o n in the s ta te c o ur ts
. T he S ta te Ba rr emov ed th e acti on t o federa lco urt. Rem ova lwas properunder 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1331 and 144 1(b ) b ec ause the Obj ecto rs ’ cl ai m ar ose und er the federa l Consti tuti on. The p arti es 2N o. 09

- 4080 9

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 arg u a bly exc eeded his pow ers , his decis ion was app eal able, and beca u se the und erl ying cl aim aros e und er the federal Co nst itution, the app eal w as rem ovab le

. conse nted to have thei r c as e h eard by M agi str ate J ud ge Croc k e r u nd e r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 6 3 6 ( c )
. J ud g e Cr o c k e r a ffi rm ed th e arbi tr at o r ’ s dec i si o n. H e rej ec te d the Obj ec to r s’ a r g um en t th atl an g ua g e i n thi s co ur t’ s de ci si o n in Thie l v. S tateBa r of Wis consin , 9 4 F
. 3 d 3 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) , was o ve r r ul ed bythe S upr eme Co ur t i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. U nite d Food s, Inc. , 53 3 U.S

. 40 5 ( 2001 )
. S ee Kin gs t ad v

. StateBa r of Wis consin , 67 0 F
. S up p . 2 d 9 22, 92 6 ( W
. D. W i s. 2009 )
. The Obj ecto rs then appeal ed to thi s co urt.

A nalysis I. M anda t ory As s oc i at i ons un de rtheFi rs tAm e ndment T he Ob j ectors arg u e tha t even thou gh the Stat e B ar’s p u b lic im ag e c am p aig n w as n otp olit ica l or id eo log i c al, i t wa s not ger m ane t o the purpos es ofthe St ate Bar tha ta l l o w the g r o up t o c o mpe lme mbe r s t o s up po r ti ts gr oup speech acti vi ti es. Obj ecto rs co ntend that such forced exp en d itures m us t also be germ a n e to the p urpo se s o fthe S ta te Ba r i n o r dert o pas s F i r stAm en dm en t sc ru tiny. Our r evi ew o fthi s co nsti tuti onalquesti on is d e n ov o. Zb a r a z v . M adigan , 5 72 F.3d 37 0, 378 (7th Cir. 2009 ) ; K l e m e nta no vsky v . Go nz a les , 50 1 F
. 3d 788, 79 1 ( 7th Cir

. 20 07)
. On thi s th re sh ol d i ssue ofl aw , we agr ee w i th the Obj ecto rs .10 N o. 09

- 4080 To und er sta nd wh y Obj ecto rs can be c om pel l ed to su b sid i ze som e but not al lo fthe St ate Bar’ s a cti vi ti es, one m us t un d erstan d w h y i nt egrated or m an d atory bars ar e p er m iss ible u n d er th e F irs t A m en d m en t. W e b eg in wi tha b r i efo ve r vi ew. The F i r st Am en dm en t i ss ue ar i ses b ecause barm em ber s a re r equi re d by for ce o f law to j oin th e g ro u p (as a c on d itio n of p ra c tic in g t h eir pr o fes si o n) an d t o pr o vi de fi na nc i als uppo r t f o r g r o up s pe e c h. T he s e r e qu i r e men t s i mpl i c a t e the F i r s tA m endm ent fre edom o fasso ci ati on, wh i ch i ncl ud es the fre edo m to cho o se notto as so ci at e, and the Fi r stAm en dm en t fre edom o fspeec h, wh i ch al so i ncl ud es the fre edom to re m ai n si l ent o r to avo i d subsi dizing g ro up speec h w i th w hi ch a perso n dis agree s. Se e g ener al l y Gli ck m an v. Wil em an B ros. & Elliott, Inc. , 521 U
. S. 457, 4 7 1 -7 2 (1997); H ur l ey v . Ir i s h-Am e r i ca n Gay, Les b i an and Bis exualGr oup of Bos t on , 515 U .S. 55 7, 57 3-7 4 (1 99 5 ); R a ilw a y E m plo yees’ D epar t m e ntv. Hans on , 351 U
. S. 225, 236-38 (1956 ). D es p ite th i s g en er al ru le a ga in st “fo rc ed sp ee c h,” ho wev er, the S upr eme Co ur t ha s f o und tha t ce r ta i n mandat o r y a ss o ci ati o ns

— agen cy sh op s, agricultu ral m arketing collectives, an d i nt egrated or m an d atory bars

— ar e per m i tt ed und er the F i r stAm en dm en t be ca us e th e forced sp eech serves legiti m ate gove rnm en tal pu rposes f orthe benefi t o fal lm em bers. For exam ple , “ag ency shop” a rrange m ents, i n w hi ch al lem plo yee s m us t p ay un ion d ue s w he th er th ey are un ion m e m bers or not, a r e pe r mi t t e d b e c a us e the g o v e r nme nt ha s an i nt er es t i n peac efull ab o r r el at i o ns . In g en er al, pe ac eful lab or rela tio n s a re p ro m ot ed if all em p loy ee s s h ar e inN o. 09

- 4080 11

This ar rangem ent has been des cribed variousl y as an “in te- 3 g ra te d ,” “m a n d a to ry ” o r “ u n ifie d ” b a r. S ee , e. g. , R omer o v. C ol egio deA bogado s de Pu er t o Ri co , 20 4 F .3d 291 , 29 7 n .5 ( 1st C ir . 20 0 0 ) (“in te g ra te d ” o r “ u n ifie d ” ); M or ro w v. St at e Bar o f (co n tin u ed ...) the e xpenses r el ate d to th e c ol l ecti ve bar gaini ng fro m w h ich al l em p loy ee s b en efit

—bo thuni o n mem be r s an d n o n - m e m b er s. Se e, e . g. , Aboodv. D e t r oi tBoar d of Educa t i on , 4 3 1 U. S

. 2 0 9 , 2 2 1

- 2 3 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( “ a gencys ho p” ar ra ngem ent w as perm i tte d to preve nt “fre e r i ders” o n u n ion ’s c olle c tiv e b ar ga in in g e ffor ts ); Inte rnati ona l Ass ocia tio n of M a ch inists v. S t reet, 36 7 U.S

. 74 0, 76 3- 64 ( 1961 ) (sa m e); Hans on , 35 1 U .S. a t 2 35- 38 ( pu rpos e o fpro m o ting pe ac efull ab o r r el at i o ns was l eg i ti m at e; wi th

ou t a show ing th at agen cy sh op arrange m en ts w ere used to f or ce i deol ogi calco n for m i ty orto i nfr i nge o n em p loyee s ’ freed om of ex p ression or tha t d ue s w ere i m posed f orr eas ons unrel ate d to col l ecti ve bargaini ng, a g e nc y s ho p a r r a ng e men tdi d n o tv i o l a t e F i r s tAmen dm en t). Si m il arly, statu toril y-m an d ated agricultura l m arket i ng co l l ecti ves can p as s Fi rs t Am endm ent m uster be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t ha s ani nt er es t i n e st abl ishing and m ai ntai ni ng a com prehensi ve m ar keti ng pl an f or ag ric u ltu ra l co m m od itie s. Gli ck m an , 52 1 U.S

. at46 9, 47 3. “M andator y” or “uni fi ed” bar s, under wh i ch duespayi ng m em ber sh i p i s r equi re d as a co nd i ti on t o practi ce l aw i n a s tat e, ar e a l so perm i tte d u n d er t hi s theor y. Se e g ener ally La t hrop v . D onoh ue, 36 7 U.S

. 82 0 ( 1961 ) ( ex ami ni ngW i sc o ns i n’ s m an dat o r y b ar ). In Lathrop , the 312 N o. 09

- 4080

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 C a lifo rn ia , 18 8 F
. 3d 1 174, 11 75

- 76 ( 9th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“u ni fi ed” an d

“ m a n d a to ry b a r m em b er sh ip s” ); Schnei derv. C olegio de A bogado s de Pu er t o Ri co , 187 F. 3d. 30, 31 ( 1stC ir
. 1999) ( “m and ato ry b a r” ); Was hi ngto n L eg al Foundat i on v. M as sa chuse t t s Bar Foundation , 993 F. 2d 962, 979 ( 1st Cir. 1993) ( “unifie d b a r” ). “Int egrated ” an d “u nifie d” sound m ore posi ti ve, but “m and at or y” i s c l os es tt o r ea l i t y. Cou r t an al o g i ze d a s ta te b arto a n a g en cys ho p a nd f ound that W i sco nsi n had an i nter esti n est abl i sh ing a n in te gr at ed ba r to : el ev at [ e] the e duca ti o na la nd eth ic als ta nda r ds o fthe Bar t o the e nd o fi m proving the qual i ty ofthe l ega l se r vi ce a va i l ab l e to the pe o pl e o fthe S ta te , wi th o ut re fer ence to the pol i ti calpro cess . I t ca nnot be deni ed th at th i s i s a l e g i t i ma t e e n d o f s t a t e p o l i c y . We t hi nk that the S up r e me Co ur t o f W i s c o ns i n, i n o r de r to fur th erthe S ta te ’ s l eg i ti m ate int er es ts i n r ai sing th e q ua l i tyo fpr o fes si o na ls er vi ce s, may co ns ti tu
ti onal l y r equi re that the cos ts ofi m proving the pro fess i on in thi s f ashion s h oul d be s hare d by the subj e c t s a n d b e n e fi c i a r i e s o fth e r e g u l a t o r y p r o g r a m, th e lawyers, ev en tho ugh the or gani zati on cr eat ed to att ai n the obj ecti ve al so engag es i n so m e l egi sl ati ve acti vi ty. 36 7 U.S

. at84 2- 43 ( i nter nalf oo tnot e o m i tte d). The Lathrop C ou rt re se r ve d j udg m en t o n the que st i o n whe th erthe di ss en te r s’ r i g ht s wer e be i ngv i o l at ed byus i ngmandat o r y b ardue s to s uppo r t poli ti ca la ct i vi ti es , fi ndi ngN o. 09

- 4080 13 that the r eco rd was not suffi ci ently d evel oped to ad d re ss th at cla im
. Id

. at84 7- 48. H owever, i t i s a l so now cl ear t h at the g ro up speec h i tse l fi s no t a suffi ci ent purpos e fora m andator y a sso ci ati o n t o wi th st an d F i r stAm en dm en t sc r ut i ny . In U nited State s v. U nite d Foo ds, Inc. , 5 33 U. S

. 4 05 ( 20 01 ) , the Suprem e Cour t e xam i ned an ag ri cu l tura lco l l ecti ve un d er w hich m ost of the coll ecte d asse ssm en ts w ere spe nto n g en er i c adv er ti sing . Al th o ug h the di ss en ti ng g ro u p m em b er s w er e n otres tr ict ed from co m m u n ic at in g th eir o w n m es sa ge s, w er e n otco m p elle d to p ar tic ipate in any actualo r sy m bol i c spee ch, and w er e no t com pel l ed t o supp or t a ny par ti cul arpol i ti calo r i deol o g i ca lv i ewpo i nt, the Co ur t st i l lhe l d the pro g r am unc o nsti tuti onal

. The Courtf ound t h at the und er l yi ng pro gr am was differ ent fro m the prog ra m thathad passed m us te r i n Gli ck m an i n o ne c r iti ca lr es pec t: “ I n Gli ck m an the m andated ass ess m ents f orspeec h w er e a nci l l ar y t o a m o r e com pr eh en si ve pr o g r am r es tr i ct i ngmar k et i ng a ut o no my. He r e , f o r a l lp r a c t i c a lpur po s e s , the a dver ti si ng i tse l f, fa r fro m being anci l l ar y, i s the princi pal obj ect of the re gulat or y schem e. ” Id

. at41 1- 12. A f or ced su b sid y of g ro u p sp ee c h, in oth er w or d s, is p er m iss ible w he n it i s “a ne cess ary incide nt of a larger ex p en d iture f oran o ther w i se propergo alr equi ring the co operative acti vi ty. ” Id

. a t 41 4. In Un i t e d Fo ods , the r e was no
“ l a r g e r e x p e n d i t u r e . ” T h e p r i n c i p a l p u r p o s e o ft he g roup w as th e com p ell ed sp eech i tself, so the C ou rt f ound t h at the m andator y s ubsi dy ofthatspeec h vi ol ate d the di sse nter s’ Fi rs t Am endm ent r i ghts.14 N o. 09

- 4080 II. Sub s i dy of “Non- Ger m ane ” Spe e ch und e rtheFi rs tAm e ndm e nt I n li gh t of th ese p rinciples, W iscons in’s m an d atory St ate Bar i s co nsti tuti onal, and the Objec tor s m ay be co m pel l ed to pay th ei r sh ar e o f di r ec t an d i ndi r ect expenses that ar e reaso nabl y incurr ed by the S tat e Barto se r ve i ts dua lc o ns ti tutionalpur po se s o fr egul at i ngthe legal p rofession and i m p roving th e qu alit y of legal services. The Ob j ectors’ argu m en t is th at th e State B ar’s p ub li c im age cam p aign sim p ly d oes not fi t tha t bil l. M ore spe ci fi ca l l y, the y a r g ue tha t th e co ns ti tu ti o na li ss ue can not be resolved based solel y on th e arbitrator’s fi nd i ng t hat the S tat e Bar ’ s publ i c i m age cam pai gn was no n- po l i ti ca la nd no n- i deo l o g i ca l

. W e agr ee tha t th e i ss ue o fg er m an en ess musta l so b e par t o fthe c o ns ti tu
ti onalanal ysi s. InKell erv. StateBa r of Ca li forni a , 4 96 U. S

. 1 ( 19 90 ) , the p et itio n er s w er e p ra c tic in g la w ye r s s u bj ec t t o C alifor n ia’s int eg r a t e d b ar . Th ey cla im ed th at th e u se of th eir m em ber shi p du es to fi nance i deolog icalo r pol i ti cal acti vi ti es that they opposed vi ol ate d thei r ri ghts und er th e F i r st Am en dm en t. The y o bj ec te d t o the b ar ’ s l o bb y i ng eff o r ts , i ts fi l i ngo fa m i cus b r i efs i n pen di ngc as es , a nd i ts expend i ture s fori ts ann u al confer ence and educati on pr ogr ams. The Ca l i f o r ni a S upr eme Co ur t uphe l d the expend i ture s, but the S up re m e Court of the U ni ted States reversed

. I t stated t h at th e con stitut ionall y pe rm i ssibl e purpose s o fthe i ntegr ate d bar w er e t o re gul ate th e lega lpro fess i on a nd to i m prove the quali ty ofl ega l ser vi ces. A r evi ew i ng c ou rthad to deter m i ne wh etherN o. 09

- 4080 15 the c hal l enged ac ti vi ti es w er e nec ess ar i l y a nd r easonab l y i ncurr ed f or thos e pu rpos es, or w hetherthey we r e “ a c t i v i ti e s o fa n i de o l o g i c a ln a t ur e wh i c h [ wo ul d] f al l outsi de oftho se ar eas o fact i vi ty. ” Keller, 496 U
. S. at 13- 1 4
. T he Co ur te xp l a i ne d: Prec i sel y where the l i ne falls be tw een those S tat e B a r a ctiviti es in w hich the offi cials and m em bers o fthe Ba r a r e a c t i nge s s e nt i a l l y as pr o fe s s i o na la dvi ser s t o thos e ult i m ate l y charg ed w i th the r egul ati on ofthe l ega lpro fess i on, o n th e on e hand , and thos e acti vi ti es havi ng pol i ti calo r i deol ogi calco l or atio n whi cha r e no t r ea so nabl y r el at ed to the a dva nc ement ofsuch g oal s, o n the ot h er , w il lnotal w ays be eas y to di sc ern. Butthe ex trem e en ds o fthe s pec trum ar e cl ear : Com pu l sor y d u es m ay not be e xpend ed t o e n d o r s e o r a d v a n c e a g u n c o n t r o l o r n u c l e a r we a po ns fr ee ze i ni ti at i ve ; a t th e o th ere nd o fthe s pec trum peti ti oner s have no val i d c onst i tuti onal obj ecti on t o th ei r c o m pul so r y due s b eing spe ntf o r a ct i vi ti es c o nnecte d w i th di sci plini ng m em ber s o fthe Bar o r propo singe th i ca lc o des f o r the pr o fes si o n. Id

. at15

- 16. W e a l so l earn fro m the Supre m e Cour t’ s e xplor ati on of th is q u es tio n in o th er forc ed gro u p sp e e c h c on te x ts . In E ll is v. Brotherhoo d of Railw ay, Airl ine, and Ste am ship Cle rks , 466 U
. S. 43 5, 44 9- 55 ( 1984 ) , the Court consi dered whethe r a uni o n’ s co nv en ti o n e xpe ns es, l i ti g at i o n e xpenses that w er e no t forbar gaini ng o r gr i evance s, un i o n pu b l i c a t i o n c o s t s , s o c i a le v e nte xp e ns e s , e mpl oye e dea thb en efi ts , a nd e xpe ns es r el at ed to gen er alo r g an -16 N o. 09

- 4080

A t th e tim e ofthe Cou rt ’ s opinion the union w as no longer 4 the e xc l usive bar gai ni ng a ge nt, an d the pe t i t i one rs wer e no longer i nvo lved in the death benefit s sys tem
. Em ployee d ea th b en efi ts w er e l eft as an o p en qu es tio n . E llis , 466 U.S

. at 454- 55. i zinge ff o r ts wer e “g er m an e” t o the u ni o n’ s pur po se . The Court consi dered ea ch cat ego ryo fexpense to see wh ether it w as “n ece s s a r ily or reason ably i nc urred f or the p urpose ofper f or m i ng the duti es of an excl usi ve re prese ntati ve ofthe em plo yee s in deal i ng with the e m p loyer on l abor

- m anage m ent i ssues . ” Id

. at44 8. The di sse nter s’ be l ie ftha t th e m o ne y was no t be i ngwel ls pen t o n a ny on e o f th es e e n d ea vo rs w as n oten ou gh

. Id . at 4 56 . U ltim at ely , w ith ou t d isc u ss in g w h et h er an y ofth e c h alle n ged categories w ere p oli tical ori d eologi cal, the C ou rt fou n d t h at of the ch all en ged exp en ses, only the un ion’s l i ti gat i on e xpenses that w er e no t forbar gaini ng o r gr i evances and expenses r el ate d to i ts or gani zi ng eff or ts w er e n ot g erm ane t o the uni on’ s purpose s that per m i tte d for c ed sp ee c h

. Id

. a t 44 8- 55
. The o th erc at eg o r i es o fe xpend i ture s

— so ci ale ve nt s, publ i ca ti o ns , a nd c o nv en ti o ns

— did noti nfr i nge the o b j ecting em plo yee s’ Fi rs t A m en dm en t r i g ht s an y mor e th anthe i r c o m pulsory co nt r ibut i on to the uni o n, a nd wer e uphe l d b y the C ou rt
. Id

. at45 5- 57. 4 A lso , in Lehne r tv. F err i s Fa cu l ty As s oc i at i on , 50 0 U.S

. 50 7 ( 1991 ), t h e Cour t r ei ter ate d that, to be charg ed to di ssenting em plo yee s, the age ncy s hop unio n ex p en ses m ust “ ( 1) be ‘ ger m ane’ to co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ac tiv ity;N o. 09

- 4080 17

The L ehn ertCou rtal so not ed, w ithout disc uss ion or explana- 5 ti on, thatthe cam paign w as polit ic al in nature. See id

. The Ob j ec t or s ha v e no tar gue d thatthe publ i c i m age c am pai gn con d u cted b y the W iscon sin Sta te B ar w as sim ilarly p olitical. ( 2) be j usti fi ed by the g ove rnm ent’ s v i talpol i cy i nt er est i n l abor a n d peace and avo i ding ‘ fre e r i ders’ ; and ( 3) not sig n ifica n tly ad d t o th e b u rd en in g of fr ee sp ee c h th at is in h er en t in th e a llow an c e o f an ag e n c y o r u n ion sh op .” Leh nert, 5 00 U. S

. a t 51 9. The Co ur t ca ut i o ne d tha t th e tes t di d n ot requi re “a di re ct r el ati onshi p between th e exp en se ati ss ue a nd s o m e ta ng ibl e be ne fi t to the diss enter s’ bar gaini ng uni t. ” Id

. at52 2. W e nee d not l i st th e s p e c i fi c e x p e n d i t u r e s u n d e r r e v i e w a s i d e fr o m o ne th a t is p articu larl y rel evan t here

— a p u b l i c i ma g e c a mpai g n. The Co ur t f o und tha t, unde r thi s st an d ard , the p ub li c im age cam p aign w as no t germ an e to the u nion ’s c olle c tiv e b ar ga in in g fu n c tio n s. Leh nert, 500 U
. S. at 528

- 29. 5 Fr om thes e tea c h i ngs, we concl ud e that in a for ced gr oup speech ca se, the Fi rs t Am endm en t requir es a re vie w in g c ou rtto co n sid er w h et h er ch alle n ge d ex p en d iture s by diss enti ng m em ber s o fa m andator y a sso ci atio n are rea so n ab ly re lat ed to t h e c on st itu tio n ally r el ev an t pur po se s o fthat ass o ci at i o n. I t i s no t su ffi ci en t t o e xa mi ne o nly the po l i t i c a l o r i de o l o g i c a l na ture o f th o se e xpe ndi tu r es wi th o ut a ls o c o ns i der i ngwhethe r the expenses ar e re l ate d t o the const i tuti onal l y leg i ti m ate pur poses o fthe a ss o ci at i o n tha t per m i t f o r ce d g r o up speech in the fi rs t pl ace . T h e a pp l i cabl e ca ses do not d escribe the an alysis as a test of “either-or, ” as in “either”18 N o. 09

- 4080 the e xpend i ture s a re non-p oli ti caland non- i deol ogi cal “or” th eya r e no n- g er m an e be f o r e th eyi m pl i ca te the First A m en d m en t. R ath er, the key is the overa ll“germ aneness ” o fthe speech t o the g ove rnm entali n teres t at i ssue. The pol i ti calo r i deol ogi calnatur e o fth e s peech f acto rs i nto that ult i m ate anal ysi s. The parti es have fr am ed the i ssue bef or e us as w hetherthe Obj ecto rs m ay be r eq u ire d to subsi dize sp ee c h th at i s n o t p olit ica l or id eo log ica l bu t t h at is als o n otge rm an e t o th e c on st itu tio n al l y p er m iss ible p u rp os es of a m an d at or y b ar . Sinc e w e la st ad d re ss ed th is i ss ue i n Thielv . S ta teBa r of Wis consin , b o th th e S u p r e me Court and t h e Fir st Cir cui t hav e pr ovi ded addit i onal g ui dance

. In U ni t e d F oods , the Suprem e Cour t r evi ew ed i ts e ar l i erde ci si o ns i n Abood a nd Kellerand expla i ned th e t e s tn o ti n t e r ms o fp o l i t i c s o r i d e o l o g y b u ti n t e r ms ofge rm anen es s: “speec h need notbe chara cter i zed as p olit ica l be f o r e itrec eiv es Firs t A m en d m en t p ro te c tio n,” an d “la w ye rs [ca n ] be req u ire d to p a y m o n ey s in s up po r t o f a c t i v i t i e s tha t [ a r e ] g e r man e t o the r eas on j u st ifying the com pel l ed ass oci ati on i n the fi rs t pla ce . . . . [ O]bj ecting m em ber s [ ar e] notr eq u ire d to gi ve speech subsid ies for m att er s no t g er m ane t o the l ar gerr egula tory purpose wh i ch j ustifie[s ] the re quir ed ass oci ati on. ” Un i t e d F o ods , 53 3 U.S

. at41 3- 14, di scussing Abood, 4 3 1 U. S

. a t2 3 2 (uni on due s ) , a nd Keller, 49 6 U.S

. at14 (m an d atory stat e bar). The Fi rs t Ci rcui t co nsi dered thi s probl em o fge rm anene ss f or b ar e xpe ndi tu r es i n Rom e r o v. Col egi o deAbogados de Puert o R ico , 204 F.3d 2 9 1 (1st C ir. 2000). Pu erto Rico’sN o. 09

- 4080 19

m andator y b ar( the “ Col egi o”) r equire d m em ber s t o pu rchas e l i fe insurance fro m i ts gr oup l i fe insurance prog ra m . That e x p en diture w as obvi ousl y no t pol i ti cal ori deol ogi cal, but coul d unw i ll i ng m em ber s be r equi re d to pa y the b arf o r l i fe i ns ur an ce th eydi d no t want ? N o ting that i n so m e y ear s the i nsurance prem i um co n stituted as much a s 72 % o fthe b ardue s, the Firs t Ci r cui t f o und th e m an d atory p aym en t to the C olegi o’s grou p l ife i ns uran c e p lan w as u n c on st itu tio n al, h old in g s p ec ifica lly that m andator y b aras so c iati on dues co uld notbe used to fund non- ger m an e a cti vi ti es eve n i ftho se acti vi ti es w er e not i deol ogi cal

. S ee id

. at 300 (“To saythat ge rm aneness i s the te st i n i d eol og i calexpenditure case s i s no t t o sa y tha t i t i s no t al so a r el ev an t i nqui r y i n c as es i nvol vi ng non- i deol ogi calexpenditures . ”)
. In re achi n g i ts c on c lu sio n, th e Firs t C irc u it con sid er ed t h e ap p lica b le Suprem e Cour t pr ecedents and the pol i cy su pp or ti ng i ts co nc l us i o n. As the c o ur t e xpl aine d, the F i r stAm en dm en t perm i ts the g ove rnm ent t o f or ce a uni on o r barm em ber to p a y o n l y f o r th o s e e x p e n s e s th a t a r e g e r ma n e t o t he pu rpos es that j usti fy r equ i ring the m em berto bel ong to the g ro up i n the fi rs t pl ace: [S] tr o ngpub l i c i nt er es ts j us ti fy the i nt r us i o n, a nd th e g er m an en es s t es t g u ar an te es th at t h es e p u b lic i nter est s a re being se rv ed by any c hal l enged activ ity. C om p ellin g fin an c ial su p p o rtfor a c tiv itie s w h olly unrel ate d to thos e publ i c i nter est s, however, change s the bal a nc e a nd we a k e ns the j us t i fi c a t i o n tha ts up port ed the i ntrusi on o n Fi rs t Am end m en t asso ci ati onali nter est s in the fi rs t pl ace. S i m plyst ate d, that ani ndivi d ua lmay be c o m pel l ed to a ss o ci at e an d20 N o. 09

- 4080 fi nancially co ntribute forso m e purpose s doe s no t m ea n s he may be c o m pel l ed to a ss o ci at e a nd fi na nciall y con tribute f or al l p urp oses. W ithou t this germ an en es s c h ec k, on c e a p er so n is c o m p e l led to j oin and supp or t a barassoci ati on f orl egi ti m ate r eas ons, she c oul d be f or ced to p ay f orany baract i vi ty f or any r e a s o n o r no r e a s o n, a s l o ng a s i t di d not i nvol ve pol i ti calo r i deol ogi calexpre ssi on. U nd er the Col egi o’ s theor y, f orexam ple , i t co uld m andate th atmem be r s j o i n i ts l i fe insu ra nc e pr o g r am an d then s pend 99 % o fm em berdues o n l i fe insurance. R o m ero , 2 0 4 F
. 3 d a t 30 1 ( i n t e r n a lc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. We ag r ee wi th R o m ero an d th is re as on in g. To av oi d an i nquir y i n to ge rm aneness , the St ate Bar r el i es he av i l y o n o uro pi ni o n in a n e ar l i erc ha pter o fthe W isc on sin ba r sa ga , Thielv. StateB a r of Wis consin , 94 F
. 3d 39 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. In Thiel , pl ai nti ff s cha llenged th e fa c ial v alid ity of W isc on si n S u p re m e C ou rtR u le 10
. 03 ( 5) ( b) t o the e xt en t i t au th o r i ze d the us e o fmand at or y d u es for n on -ge rm an e, n on -id eo l o gic al e x p en d iture s. A fte r re sol vi ng an Ele venth Am endm ent i ssue, the Thiel m aj o r i ty o pi ni o n r ev i ewe d th e the n- r ec en t Suprem e Cour t ca ses o n f or c ed speech a nd co ncl ud ed that the c ourtdi d not need to deci de w hetherthe St ate B ar’s non -politi cal and non -i d eologi cal sp eec h w as germ ane t o its p urpose s o fr egul ating the l ega lpro fess i on ori m proving the qual i ty ofl eg al se rv i ces: “we hol d that the F i rs t Am endm ent doe s not pro hibi t the Bar fro m fund i ng non- i deol ogi cal, non- ger m ane a cti vi ti es w i th com pel l ed dues. ” 9 4 F
. 3d a t 405. The Thiel m aj or i ty thenN o. 09

- 4080 21 add re sse d the chal l enged acti vi ti es and concl ud ed that they w er e a l li n f act ger m ane t o the S tat e Bar ’ s l egi ti m ate pu rpos es. Id. E ither o fthes e a l ternati ve hol dings was suffi ci ent t o deci de Thiel itself

. W r i tings epa r at ely, J udg e Ri ppl e con cu r r ed wi ththe j u d g me n tb ut di s a g r e e d wi th th e b r o a d e r h o l d i n g . He c au tio n ed th at all of th e a c tiv itie s c om p lain ed of in Thiel “ fi t qui te c o m f o r tabl y wi th i n the c ategory o fno ni deol ogi cal, nonpol i ti calact i vi ti es that ar e g er m ane t o th e r egul ati on o fthe l ega lpro fess i on o r the i m prove m ent o fthe quali ty ofl ega lse rv i ces. ” He concl ud ed that th e c o ur twa s “ no tc o nfr o nt e d h e r e wi th a s i t ua t i on inw h ich th e b ar ca n be sa id to be en g a g in g in n on p olitic al, n on -id eo log ica l ac tiv itie s t h at are als o co m p let ely di vo r ce d fr o m th o se st atut o r y pur po se s th at j us ti fy m an da t o r y du e s . ” Id . at 4 06 ( Rippl e, J
. , co ncurr i ng)
. J ud ge Rip pl e n o t e d fur the r tha t“ c e r t a i nly, the s a me pr o c e du r al prot ecti ons that fer re t o ut act i vi ti es ofan i d eol ogi cal and pol i ti calnatur e wil lal so i denti fy no nger m ane a cti vi ti es that ar e no t i deol og i calo r pol i tic al. But that does not m ean necess ar i l y that s uch nonger m ane a cti vi ti es need not be i denti fi ed orthattheycan be s up p or ted by m andator y dues. ” Id

. Today’ s ca se aga i n pres ents t he questi on that di vi ded the Thiel p an el. T he arbitrator an d th e d istri ct cou rt un d erstan d ably reli ed o n th e langu age of the m aj ority’ s firs t a lte rn at ive h old in g in r ea c h in g t h eir d ec isio n s in th is case . W i th the bene fi t o fthe l ate r gui dance fro m U nited Fo o ds an d t h e F irs t C irc u it’s h elp fu l op in ion in R o m ero , ho w eve r, we ag r ee wi thJ udg e Ri ppl e’ s co nc l u-22 N o. 09

- 4080

Bec aus e thi s dec i s i on ove rr ul es the al t er nat i ve hol di ng o f 6 Thie l, thi s opi ni on has be enc i rc ul at ed a m ong al l j udges of this co u rt in reg u lar ac tiv e serv ice p u rsu an t t o C ircu it R u le 40( e)
. No j udge f avor ed a r eh ea ri ng e n ba nc onthe que s t i on of o v e r r u lin g th a t p o rt io n o f Thie l

. J ud ge Sykes wou ld rehear the case o n th e issue o f t h e a ctu al g erm an en ess of the Sta te Bar’ s pu blici m age cam paign, and her diss ent f rom the denial of reh ear ing en b an c follow s. sion. W e agree th at th e State B a r m ay us e the m an d atory du es ofo bj ecting m em ber s t o fund o nl y those acti vi ti es th at are reas o na bly rel ated to the State Ba r’s du al pu rpo se s o f r egul at i ng th e pr o fes si o n an d i m pr o vi ng the qua l i ty o f l eg al se r vi ce s, whethe r o r no t th o se sam e exp en d itu re s a re als o n on -id eo log ica l an d n on -p olit ica l. W e thus o ve r r ul e th e fi r sta l te r na ti ve ho l di ngi n Thiel and ho l d that the Fi rs t A m endm ent prohibi ts th e W isconsin St ate Bar fro m fund i ng non- ger m ane a cti vi ti es w i th co m p elle d du es. Thi s ho l ding effecti vel y fi nd s that 6 th e s ec on d se n te n c e o f W isc on sin Su p re m e C o u r t R u le 10. 03( 5) ( b) 1 i s t oo n ar row bec ause i t a uthor i zes o bj ecti ons to the use o fm andator y dues on ly forpol i ti cal and i deol ogi cal acti vi ti es that ar e not re aso nabl y re lated to the c onst i tuti onalpurposes o fr egul ating the l ega l p ro fes sio n an d im p ro vin g t h e q u alit y of le ga l se rv ice s.

III
. Ger m ane ne s s of

thePub l i c Im ageCam paign Th e St ate Bar ar gues that i ts pu bl i c i m age cam pai gn expenses w er e g er m ane t o i m proving the qual i ty of l ega l services av ail able to the p e o p le ofW iscons in. T he Ba r’sN o. 09

- 4080 23

con cern w as th at, i f th e p u bli c lacks trus t in l aw yers a n d th e l e g a ls y s t e m, mo r e p e o p l e ma y r e p r e s e ntth e mselves rath er than se e k in g o ut the ass istanc e of a law yer. O n the othe r hand , i f peopl e have m or e confi de n c e in l aw yer s an d the l ega lsy ste m , theyar e m or e l i kel y t o parti ci pate in that sys tem and w ill b e m or e l i kel y t o re f r a i n from ex tr a-le ga l, an d ev en vio len t, se lf-h elp m easu res. B y a t tem p ting to p rom ote tru st in l aw yers and the l ega lsy st em , the pu bl i c i m age cam pai gn al so soughtto so l i dify the fi du ci ar y r el ati onshi p between l a wy e r a n d c l i e n ta n d t o i mp r o v e l a wy e r - c l i e n tc o mm uni ca ti o ns b y e nc o ur ag i ngdi sc l o su r e, c an do r, and com pli ance w i th co m petent advi ce. T h e O bj e c t o r s c o u n t e r th a tth e r e wa s n o d e mon strated con ne ction betw een im p rovem en t of th e p ub li c’s per ce pti o n oflaw y er s an d the l eg alpr o fes si o n a nd the i m prove m ent o fthe quali ty ofse rv i ces that thos e law ye rs p ro vid e. A c c or d in g t o th e O bj ec to rs , th e p u b lic im ag e ca m pai gn was desi gned to bene fi t l aw yer s, not th e publ i c, b y e nc o ur ag i ngmor e peo pl e to e ng ag e th e ser vi ces ofl aw yer s, thus g ener ating m or e fees . A l though th e arbi tr at o r ha d “ do ubt s” a s to the g er m an en es s of th e publ i c i m ag e ca m pai g n, he di d not reac h the i ss ue b e c a us e h e c o nc l ud e d h e w a s n o ta utho r i z e d t o de c i de the c onstitu tional i ssue. U nl i ke the a rbi tr ato r, we are so au th o r i ze d. The r ec o r d ha s been su ppl ement ed, a nd the k ey f acts abo ut the c on te n t a nd natur e o fthe St ate Bar’ s publ i c i m age ca m p aign are notdi sputed. W e ca n ap pl y the c o ns ti tu ti o na lt es t f o r r ea so nabl en es s wi th o ut r e man d.24 N o. 09

- 4080 U nd er Keller, 4 9 6 U. S

. a t1 4 , a nd E ll is , 46 6 U. S

. a t 44 8, the test here is w he th er th e ch all en ged ex p en d itures w ere “n ec es sa r i l y o r reaso nabl y i nc ur r ed” f o r the c o ns ti tu
tionally legi tim ate p urp oses th at au th orize m an d atory du es. N o one conte nd s the publ i c i m age cam pai gn cos ts w er e “necess ar i l y” i ncurr ed to i m prove the quali ty of l egal services. T he i ssu e is w he th er the c o sts w ere “r eas onabl y” i ncurr ed f orth at pu rpos e. The S tat e Bar be l i ev es the r e i s a r el at i o ns hi p betwee n i m pr o vingthe pu bl i c’ s t rusti n l aw yer s a nd i m proving the qual i ty of l e g a ls e r v i c e s tha ttho se l a wy e r s a r e ab l e t o p r o v i de

. By f ost er i ng that tr ust, the St ate Bar hoped t o e ncoura ge b e t t e r c om muni c a t i o n b e t we e n l a wy e r s a nd c l i e nt s , a nd , i n doi ng so , to enco urag e develop m ent o fthe att or neyc l i e n tr e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e h o p e was th a tt r u s ta n d c o mm uni c a t i o n wo u l d i mpr o v e th e qu a l i t y o fth e r e l a t i o ns hi p a nd the s e r v i c e p r o v i de d. Ourdi ss en tingc o l league fi nds tha t th eo r y t o b e spe cul ati ve and unsup port ed by the r eco rd. W e do not sugge st that th e th eory i s be yond debate

. I t r el i es on a se ri es of ass um pti ons: a “so ft” i m age cam pai gn wil li m prove th e pu bli c im age of l aw yers, w h ich w il l lead i n tu rn to bett erat to rney- cl i ent r el ati onshi ps, wh i ch w i l ll ead in tur n t o b et te r qua l i tyl eg als er vi ce s. W e do no t as sert that the r ec ord shows the publ i c i m age cam pai gn has a c t u a l l y i mpr o v e d th e qu a l i t y o fl e g a ls e r v i c e s , b u twe do not see a need f ora tr i althatwo u ld scruti ni ze ei ther the subj ecti ve m oti ves of bar l eader s or the actual effec

tivene ss of the p u b lic i m age cam p aign. Th e stan d ard ofr evi ew i s defer enti al, as wh en we re vi ew chal l engedN o. 09

- 4080 25 l egi sl ati on t o deter m i ne wh etheri t i s r eason ab l y r el ate d to a legi tim ate governm en tal p urp ose. U nd er th a t de feren tial stan d a r d , w e find that the Stat e B ar’s theory i s no t unre aso nabl e. A cl i ent who t ru st s h i s o r her l aw yer seem s m ore l ikel y to disclose relevan t inform at ion, pa rticu larl y i f th at inform ation is sensitive, an d better, m ore can d id com m unica ti on s houl d enabl e l aw yer s t o gi ve b e t t e r, mo r e c o mpr e he ns i v e a dv i ce

— wh i c h s h o u l d i mp ro v e t h e qu alit y of s er vic es . A lso , i t s ee m s re as on ab le to us t o e xp e c ttha ta c l i e ntwh o t r us t s h i s o r h e r l aw yer i s m o r e l i k el y t o a cc epta nd a ctupo n a ny a dvi ce the l awy eri s ab l e to p rovi de. W he n pe o pl e f o l l o w co m pet en t l e g a la dv i c e , the s y s t e m i t s e l fi s i mpr o v e d. Do W i sc o ns i n l awy er s th emse l ve s be ne fi t fr o m the St ate Bar’ s publ i c i m age cam pai gn? W e ca n ass um e that they m ay. I fm or e peo ple se ek out the s er vi ces of l aw y e r s a s a r e s ul to fthe p ub l i c i mag e c a mpa i g n, tho se l aw yer s wil lbene fi t fro m the i ncre ase d b u si ness that r es ul ts
. B u tth a ta d d i t i o n a le ffe c td o e s n o tn u l l i fy the leg iti m acy ofthe cam pai gn. A gain, the St ate Bar i s no t re q u i r e d to p ro ve th at its ex p en d itu re s w er e a c tu ally succes sful i n acco m pli shi ng the st ate d p urpose , o r that th ey se rv ed onl y that purpose , o r that the publ i c i m age cam pai gn was a parti cul ar l y wis e use o fthe St ate B ar ’s fu n d s. A fte r all, “[p ]et itio n er s m ay fee l th at th eir m oneyi s no t be i ng well

- spent, but that does not m ean that they have a F i rs t Am en d m en t co m pla i nt. ” E ll is , 46 6 U
. S. at45 6, quote d by Thiel , 94 F. 3d at 405. T h e lim ited i ssue bef or e us i s whether the publ i c i m age cam pai gn w as re aso nabl y r el ated to the c onst i tuti onal l y l egi ti m ate26 N o. 09

- 4080 pur po se o fi m pr o vingthe qua li ty o fl eg als er vi ce s, a nd w e fi nd thati t was. Altho ug h the S upr eme Co ur t i n Lehner t fou n d t hat a uni o n’ s publ i c i m age cam pai g n was no t g er m an e, the pu rpos es supp or ti ng m andator y uni on dues ( col l ecti ve barga ining an d gri evan ce resolution ) an d a m a n d a tory bar (regulating th e profession a n d i m p roving legal servi ces) ar e v er y di ffer en t. S ee Leh nert, 50 0 U.S

. at52 8- 29. W e fin d p er su as i v e h er e t h e N in th C irc u it’s d ec isio n in Gard ne rv. St at eBarof Ne vada , 284 F .3 d 1040 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) , wh i c h di s t i ngui s he d Lehner t an d fou n d a p u b l ic i m age cam pai gn f orl aw yer s was “hi ghl y g er m ane” to th e legi tim ate p urp oses of a m an d atory b a r . Th e cou rt provi ded a pow er ful defe nse o fthe l ega lpro fess i on an d the ne ed f o r f o st er i ng

— an d e arni ng

— pu bl i c trust: A m ong the functi ons ofthe St ate Bar i n thi s ca se is the fun ction ide nt ified by the district cou rt

— “to advance underst anding ofthe l aw , t he sy ste m o f j usti ce, and the rol e o fl aw yer s, as o pp ose d to nonl aw yer s, to m ake the l aw work f orev er yone . ” That pu rpos e i s s ati sfi ed by th e S tat e Bar ’ s ca m pai gn to d isp el any not ion tha t law yers are ch eats or are m er el y dedi cat ed to thei r own se l f

- advancem ent o r profi t. The l aw , r i ghtl y und er sto od, i s no t a busi ness w h e re th e b ot to m line d ict at es th e c on d u c t t h at is perm i ssible. T he l aw i s a pro fess i on wh er e a near m onopol y o facc ess to the c ou rts i s g ra nted to a tr ai ned grou p o f m en and w om en o n the basi s that they w i l lf ol l ow the pro fess i on’ s r ule s o fco nd uct and i n so doi ng se rv e the ca use o fj usti ce.N o. 09

- 4080 27 [Plaintiff] Ga rd ne r m akes th e po int th at law y ers ar e su ppo se d t o s er ve the i r c l i en ts , no t “e ve r y o ne . ” But the underl yi ng as sum pti on that j u st ifi es the j usti ce system i s that e ver yo ne i s s er ved by the a dequ ate re prese ntati on o fco nfl i cti ng int erest s a nd per spectives. I t is p erfectly true, n o t p uffery, that l aw yers st ri ve to m ake the l aw work f orev er yone bythe ir fair an d ze alo u s re p re se n ta tio n s o ft h eir clie n ts . I t i s i m port ant forthe pu bl i c to understa nd that a l aw yerr epres enti ng a defe nd ant in a c ri m i nalcas e i s no t a defen dero fc r i m e, an d tha t a l awy era dvi sing hi s o r he r c l i en t o fa tax b r ea ki s no t a sc o undr elb ut ana l l y o fa g o ve r nm en t th ats ho ul d c o l l ec t a s ta x n o m o r e th anthe l aw allow s. I t i s equa l l y i m po r ta nt for cit i zens to know that a pro secuto r see ki ng to i m pr i so n a man b el i ev ed g ui l tyo fa c r i m e i s serving j usti ce, as is t he st ate ta x departm ent’ s a tto rney s see ki ng to col l ect a tax. The l aw yer w ho re prese nts a cl i ent who bel i eve s s he has been unfair l y deni ed prom oti on i s a s m uch a par tneri n the sys te m o f j usti ce a s the l aw yerwh o act s fo r her em plo yer se ek i ngt o e xpl ain the a ppar en t di sc r i m i na ti o n. The publi c nee ds to k n ow thato ften there ar e tw o, or m or e, sid es to a st or y or a sit u at ion . M or e’s U to p ia ha s no l awy er s, but i n o ur r ea l wor l d, l awyers are n otm er ely a n ec es sit y b u t a ble ss in g. If th e p u b lic doesn’t u nd er sta nd that

— and the S tat e Barhad re as on to th in k m an y m em b er s o f th e p u b lic d id not

— th e j us tice system i tself w il l w ither. T he w ork o fthe S ta te Ba r t o f o st erpub l i c unde r st andi ngo fthe adv er sa r y na tu r e o fl aw i s vi ta lt o the b ar ’ s fun cti o n.28 N o. 09

- 4080

T h e d i ss e n t ’s c a l l fo r i n c r e a se d sc r u t i n y o f th e S t a t e B a r ’s 7 pu blici m age cam paign wou ld als o cas t doub t on the germ anen e s s o f th e a c t i v i t i e s a p p ro ved i n Thie l

. F or reaso ns p rev iou sly (co n tin u ed ...) I ti s n o i nfr i ng e ment ofa l a wy e r ’ s F i r s tAmen dmen tfr e e do ms t o be f o r c e d t o c o nt r ib ut e t o the a dv a n c e me n to fth e p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d i n go fl a w. 284 F. 3d at 1043
. The N i nth Cir cu it’s gener ous a pp ro ach to ge rm aneness i n G a rdn er is consisten t w ith th e po rtion of Thiel that rem ains bind ing , w h e r e w e foun d that allof th e pa rticular activities at i ssu e w ere germ an e t o th e pu rpo se o fthe S ta te Ba r a nd c o ul d b e fun d ed w ith mandat o r y due s. The di spu te d a ct i vi ti es i n Thiel i n cl ud ed pu bl i shi ng an d d i str ibuti ng a Bil lo fRi ghts pam phletf or pre- col l ege s tudents, co nd ucti ng an “Econom i cs o fPra cti c e” s u rv ey desi gned to hel p l aw yer s a dd re ss busi ness de c i s i o ns r e l a t e d t o the p r a c t i c e o fl a w, fun di nga wa r ds gi ven t o re port er s forwr itin g o n l aw - re l ate d topi cs, sponsor i ng a gr oup to ass i st alc oholi c l aw yer s, l oca lbar g r a n ts , an d sp on so rin g a m oc k t ria l co m p et itio n . Thiel , 94 F.3d at 40 5. A lthou gh w e hav e overru led t he alterna tiv e ho l di ngi n Thiel , i ts una ni m o us a ss es smento fthe a c t ua lg e r man e ne s s o fthe s e a c t i v i t i e s r e mai ns s o un d. T h er e i s n o m ea n in gfu l d iffer en c e b et w ee nth e p u b lic i m ag e ca m pai g n a t i ss ue he r e and se ve r alo ftho se e xpendi tu r es we appr o ve d i n Thiel

. W e do no t be l i ev e th e re as on ab len es s t es t re q u ire s fe d e r al c ou rt s t o e n ga ge in cl ose r parsing o fthe St ate Bar’ s e xpend i tures. In l i ght o f 7N o. 09

- 4080 29

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 sta te d , w e d o n o t b el ie v e t h a t th is h o ld in g o f Thie l n e e ds t o be re vi s i t ed, or thatthe fede ra l c ou rt s s houl d en gage i n s uc h a close p arsin g of the co nte nts o f the State B ar’s pro g ram s. G a rdn er a nd Thiel , w e c on c lu d e t h at th e St at e B ar ’s p u b l ic im ag e c am p aig n w as g er m an e to th e B ar ’s c on st itu tio n ally l egi ti m ate purpose ofim p ro vi ng the qual i ty ofl ega l ser vi ces avai l abl e t o the W i sco nsi n publi c. T he j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt affirm ing the arbi tr at o r ’ s dec i si o n to o ve r r ul e pl aint i ff s’ o bj ec ti o ns i s A FFI RMED .

S YKES, C ircu i tJudg e, di sse nti ng fro m the denia lo fr ehear i ng en banc. Three W isc onsi n l aw yer s fi l ed an o bj ecti on t o the S tat e Bar ’ s use o fthei r m andatory bardues t o fu n d a p u b l i c - r e l a t i o n s c a mp a i g n d e s i gn e d t o i mpr o ve the i m ag e o fl awy er s an d the l eg alpr o fes si o n. TheirFi rs t Am endm ent c hal l enge raises i m port ant quest io n s abou t the cont inu ed viabil ity of Th i e l v . S t a t e Ba rof Wis consin , 94 F. 3d 399 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 6), the val i dity o f W i sc o ns i n S upr eme Co ur t Rul e ( “S CR”) 1 0. 03 ( 5) ( b)1, an d the pr operapproa c h t o the “ ger m aneness ” inquir y that d et er m in es w h et h er a com p u lso ry sp ee c h su b sid y is30 N o. 09

- 4080 consi ste nt with the c on sti tuti on, atl eas t in the conte xt o f a m an dator y b ar . The S tat e Bardefends Thiel a n d S CR 10.03(5)(b)1, an d argue s tha t its use o f m an d atory bardues f ora pu bl i c- i m age cam pai gn i s co nsti tuti onal un d er Kel le r v. StateBa r of Ca li forni a , 496 U
. S. 1 ( 1990 ). M y col l eagues si de w i th the chal l enger s on the first two i nqui r i es , o ve r r ul i ngthe pr i m ar y ho l di ng i n Thiel and e ffecti vel y i nval i dati ng SCR 10. 03( 5) ( b) 1. P anel Op. at1 4- 22
. Ia g r ee wi ththi s par t o fthe o pi ni o n. The co m p ell ed -sub sidy d octrine of Kelleri s no t l i m i ted to case s chal l engi ng th e use o fco m pu l sor y b ardues f or i de ol ogi ca l o r pol i t i ca l act i vi ti es, as Thiel he l d a nd the suprem e co urt rul e im p l i es. I t a pp l i es m or e br oadl y, f or th e reas o n s the p an el has am p ly ex p lai ne d

. U nd er Keller an d the S upr eme Co ur t’ s r el at ed dec i si o ns i n the uni o ns h o p c o n t e x t, a ma n d a t o r y ba r a s s o c i a t i o n ma y u s e c o mpu l sor y b ardues only f oract i vi ti es t h at ar e g er m ane t o th e con stitut ionall y relevan t j us tifications for forced b a ra s s o c i a t i o n memb e r s hi p: ( 1 ) the r e g ul a t i o n o f the l ega l pr o fe s s i o n; a nd ( 2 ) the i mpr o v e men t o f the qu a l i ty of leg al s er vic es . Keller, 49 6 U .S . a t 1 4; s e eal s o Rom e r o v. Col egi o de Ab og ad os de Pue rt o R ico , 20 4 F
. 3d 291, 29 7- 303 (1st C ir. 2000 ). A ctiviti es not germ an e to thes e pu rposes m ust be fund ed fro m vo l untarydues. Thi s is so r egar dle ss of w hetherthe chal l enged e xpend i ture qual i fi es as “p olit ica l” or “id eo log ica l.” M or e s p ec ifica lly, Keller he l d tha t“ the g ui di ngs t a nd a r d” f oras ses si ng the co nsti tuti onal i ty ofa m andator y b ar as so ci at i o n’ s us e o fc o m pul so r y b ardue s i s “whe th erthe c h alle n ge d ex p e n d i tu re s a re n ec es sa rily o r re as on ab lyN o. 09

- 4080 31

The p lai nti ff s here

— J on K ingst ad, St even Lev ine, an d Jam es 1 Thiel

— are freq u en t m an d ato ry -b ar litiga nts an d are cu rren tly w aging a tw o- f ront war againstthe al le ged unconsti tuti onal us e ofthe i r c om pul s or y bardues

. Thi s c as e is o ne fro nt
. The othe r i s a pet i t i on befor e the W i s c ons i n Supr em e Cour tt o a m en d SCR 10. 03( 5) ( b)1 t o delet e the l angu age thatl im it s the K eller “germ aneness ” inquiry to State Bar act ivit ie s thatare “polit ic al o r id eo lo g ic a l” in n a tu re . S ee Pet. to A m end SC R 10. 03( 5) ( b)1, (co n tin u ed ...) i ncurr ed f orthe pu rpos e o fr egul atin g the l ega lpro fessio n or ‘ i m p ro vin g t h e q u alit y of t h e le ga l se rv ice av ailab l e to the pe o pl e o fthe S tate.’ ” 496 U. S

. a t 14 ( quo ting Lathrop v . D onoh ue, 367 U
. S. 82 0, 84 3 (1961 ) )
. The panel com prehensi vel y e xplains wh y Kel l e r and m o r e r ec en t devel opm ents in S up re m e Cour t ca sel aw r equi re us t o o ve r r ul e th e pr i m ar y ho l di ngi n Thiel

. PanelOp. at 14- 22. Overr uling Thiel , i n tu rn, effecti vely inval i dates cri ti cal l i m i ti ng l anguage i n SC R 10
. 03( 5) ( b) 1. Thi s r ule was adopt e d b y the Wi s c o ns i n S up r e me Co ur ti n r e s po nse to Keller a n d essen tially refl ects the m ore l im ited u nd erstan d ing of K e l l e r ar ti cul at ed i n Thiel

. The rul e pr ovi des, i n p e r t i n e n tp a r t, th a t“ [ t ] h e S t a t e B a r ma y n o tu s e c o mpu l sor y dues o fany m em berwh o obj ects to thatuse f o r po l i ti ca lo r i deo l o g i cala ct i vi ti es tha t ar e no t r ea so nabl y intended fo r th e purpose o fr egul ating the l ega lpro fess ion or i m proving the qual i ty ofl ega lse rv i ces. ” W IS . S UP . C T . R. 10
. 03( 5) ( b) 1. To the exte nt thatth is l anguage li m its the c o n stitut ionall y requ ired germ an en ess inq uiry to “p oli tical ori d eolo g ic a l activities, ” the rule i s too narro w , as the panel has cor re ctl y h eld

. PanelOp. at 22. 132 N o. 09

- 4080

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 N o. 09

- 08 , fi l ed o n Augus t24 , 20 09 , by Petiti one rs J on K ingst ad, St even Lev ine, J am es Thiel, and 40 other St ate Bar m em b er s, ava i l abl e athttp ://w w w .w icou rts.gov /sup rem e/d ocs/ 09 0 8 p e tition .pd f. T he state sup rem e cou rt is hold ing this ru lem ak ing p e t i t ion in ab ey an ce p en d ing the o u tcom e of this l i t i gat i on. T hu s far Ihav e no q ua rrel w it h a ny th ing in the p an el’ s a na l y s i s ; t o the c o nt r a r y, Ithinki ti s th o r o ugh a nd s o un d. Icannotag ree, how eve r, with the panel ’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe se pr i nc i pl es , whi cha ppea r s in Par t I I Io fthe anal ysi s s ecti on o f t h e o pini on. PanelOp. at 22- 29. Ir eco gni ze that thi s s or t o fdi sag re em ent w oul d not or d i n a r ily j u st ify re h ea rin g t h is c as e e n ba n c . B u t in th is c as e I th in k it d oe s. A fte r se tt in g t h e c on st itu tio n ally re quir ed ger m aneness i nquir y o n a s ound doctr i nal f oundati on, the panel appli es the s tandard i n a way that dra i ns i t o f a ny r e a l mea ning . Th e pa ne l c o nc l ud es that the S tat e Bar ’ s publ i c- i m age cam pai gn sa ti sfi es Ke l ler’ s ger m aneness r eq uir em ent; i n m y v i ew , thi s co ncl usi on i s p r o c e du r a l l y que s t i o nab l e a nd s ub s t a nt i v e l y fl a we d. As t o p r o c e du r e , a s th e p a n e lh a s n o t e d , th i s c a s e c a me i n t o fe d e r a l co u r tfr o m a na rb i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n gc o mm enced i n acco rdance w i th the p ro c ed uralsche m e e stabl i sh ed i n S CR 1 0.03( 5) ( b) f o r c ha l l en g i ngS ta te Ba r e xpend i ture s o fm andator y b ardues. Pursuant to the r equi r ement s o fthe r ul e, the ob j ec tingl awy er s so ug ht arbitra t ion on th e qu estion of w he th er the Stat e B ar’s pu bl i c- i m age cam pai gn co uld prop er ly be fund ed fro mN o. 09

- 4080 33

N o o ne s ugge s t s that the publ i c - i m age c am pai gn h ad a ny- 2 th in g to d o w ith “r eg u la tin g th e b a r.” thei r com pu l sor y dues o r m ust instea d be fund ed fro m vo l untarydues. The arbi tr ato r hel d that b ecause the publ i c- i m age c am p ai gn was not “pol i ti calo r i deol o g i c a l, ” th e g e r ma n e n e s s l i mi t a t i o n o n th e u s e o fc o mpu l s o r y du e s s e tf o r th i n S C R1 0
. 0 3 ( 5 ) ( b ) 1 w a s n o ti mpl i c a t e d. The a rb i t r a t o r di d notdeci de the Keller ger m aneness i ssue, pro perl y unders too d

— that i s, he di d not d ecid e w h eth er the p ub li c-im age cam p aign w as germ an e to “ i m pr o ving th e qua l i tyo fl eg als er vi ce s. ” The 2 arb itr at o r d id , ho w ev er , ex p re ss so m e s ign ifica n t s ke p tic i s m o n the ma t t e r . He s a i d: Ibel i eve thatbas ed on the ev i dence p re se n ted i t i s a str etch, i n f act, to r ega rd [ i m proving the q ual i ty of l ega lse rv i ces] as the cam p aign’ s pri m ar y purpose . Ther e i s si m pl y t o o much in the r ec o r d i ndi ca ting th atthe pr edo m i na ntg o al s ha ve mor e to do wi ththe in te re st s o f law ye rs th an w i t h th e in te re st s o f th eir cl i ents orpote nti alcl i ents. Iwil lr etur n to thi s point i n a m om ent. The o bj ec tingl awy er s so ug ht j udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe arbi tr ato r’s deci si on in sta te cour t, and the St ate Bar re m ove d the s uitto federa lcou rt b as ed on the l aw yer s’ F i r stAm en dm en t ch al l en g e to S CR 1 0. 03(5) ( b) 1 an d thi s use o fthei r m anda to ry b ardues. A s Ihave no te d, the S ta te Ba r ’ s f al lba ckpo si ti o n was tha t i fthe p o lit ical/i d eologi cal l im itation i n th e sup rem e cou rt r ul e was i nv al i d, thi s co ur t ca n a nd s ho ul d de ci de th e34 N o. 09

- 4080 br o ade r g er m an en es s que st i o n. And tha t’ s whatthe panel has done. H er e’s the ( ar guabl e) pro ceduralpro bl em : The o bj ecting l aw yer s a ske d fo r a re m and i ftheypre vai l ed on th ei r c l ai m tha t th e su pr eme c o ur t r ul e i s unc o ns ti tuti onal

. They s ai d a r em an d w as appropri ate bec ause the a rb i t r a t o r di d n o tde c i de the b r o a de r g e r man e ne ss questi on a nd bec ause the r eco rd i n the dist ri ct c ourto n that i ssue i s no nexi ste nt o r at besti ncom p lete

. I t’ s no t enti re l y c l eart o m e w hethera re m and i s nec ess ar y o r a pp r o pr i a t e u nd e r the c i r c ums t a nc e s . Wha t is clear, how eve r, i s that the panel ’ s g er m anenes s h ol ding re sts ent irelyo n b r o ad an d g en er al i zed a ss er ti o ns abo ut p u b lic t ru st in t h e le ga l p ro f e s s i o n , n oton an yt h in g in the r e c o r d. A nd thi s i s where Ithi nk the o pinio n i s o ff

- tr ack as a substa nti ve m att er . The panelco ncl ud es that the S tat e B a r ’ s p u b l i c - i ma g e c a mp a i g n i s i n d e e d g e r ma n e t o “ i mproving the qual i ty o f leg alse rv i ces. ” The r ati onal e for thi s co ncl usi on is es senti al l y tw of ol d. Fi rs t, the panel si m pl y a cc ept s th e Bar ’ s as se r ti o n tha t th e po i nto fthe i m ag e ca m pai g n was t o f oster publ i c trus t i n the l ega lp r o fe s s i o n a nd de fe r s t o the Ba r ’ s “ the o r y ” that g r e a t e r pu b l i c t r us t wi l l i mpr o v e the qu a l i t y o f the l ega l ser vice s W i sco nsi n l aw yer s pro vi de to thei r cl i ents. Panel Op . a t 2 4- 25. S eco nd , the panel adopts the r ati onal e o f th e N i nth Ci r cui t’ s dec isi o n in Gard ne rv. St at eBarof Ne vada , 284 F. 3d 1040 ( 9th Ci r. 20 02) , an a n alo gous case i nv o l v i nga F i r s tAmendm entc ha l l e ng e t o the Ne v a da St ate Bar’ s use o fco m pu lso ry d ues t o fund a si m i l arN o. 09

- 4080 35 pu bl i c- re l ati ons cam pai gn. PanelOp . a t 2 6- 28. Thi s i s a serious m isap p li cation of Keller’ s g er m aneness r eq u i re m ent. The panel c re dit s the Bar’ s g er m aneness “theor y” w i th l i ttl e cr i ti calanal ysi s a nd as sign s G a rdn er far m ore p ersu asive w eight th an i t can reason ably bear. The St ate Bar’ s f actualchar acte riz atio n ofthe i m age cam pai gn i s ca l l ed i nto questi on byth e very sl oga n u n d er w h ich th e p u b lic-r ela tio n s e ffor t flies : “W isc on sin L aw yers. E xp ert A d visors. Servin g You
. ” Th e B ar’s pu rpo se he r e i s u n mi s t a k ab l e : I ti s t o b o o s tp u b l i c o p i nion of W iscons in’s l aw yers, notenh an ce p ub li c un d ersta nd i ng o fthe leg al profess i on o r i m prove the quali ty ofthe w or k l aw yer s do f or th ei r c li en ts or the pub l i c. To be “germ an e” to “im p roving th e qu ali ty o f le g al servi ces, ” a n expend i ture o fco m pu l sor y b ardues sho uld as a fa c tualm att erhave atl eas t s o mec o nne ct i o n t o the l aw, l eg ala dvi sing, l eg ale d uc atio n, l eg ale th i cs , o r the pract i ce o fl aw . The publi c- i m age cam p aign w as ai m ed at none o ft h es e thi ngs; i t was al labo ut m ar ket i ng. I nde ed, the S ta te Ba r c al l ed i t a “Brandi ngIni ti at i ve ” an d pi tche d i t to W i sc o ns i n’ s law yer s as a pub l i c- r el at i o ns eff or t desi gned to “br and the pro fessi on” i n or der t o “im p ro ve th e p u b lic’s p er c ep tio n of th e p ro fes sio n .” The ads them sel ves w ere t ota l l y c onte nt- fre e, atl eas t i ns o f ar as co nv ey i ng an y m ea ni ng ful i nf o r m at i o n ab out the l aw o r th e ro l e o fl aw yer s in ourl ega lsy ste m . They depi ct ed l awy er s en g ag ed i n v ar ious f o r m s o fl eg ala nd no nl eg alv o l unt ee r wor ki n the i r c o m m uni ti es . T hi s k i nd of“s oft” advert i si ng m ay have a p lac e in the packag e ofse rv i ces a ba r ass oc iatio n m i ght l egi ti m ate l y want to36 N o. 09

- 4080

I am n o t sug gest ing that the germ aneness i nquiry requi res 3 an ex am i nat i on ofthe “ sub je c t i ve m ot i ves ofbarl ea der s ” o r thatthe St ate Bar m ust es tab lish thati ts “ex pend itures w ere (co n tin u ed ...) provi de f ori ts m em ber s, but l et’ s no t pr ete nd i t had an y th i ng to d o wi the duca tingthe pub l i c ab o utthe actualr ol e o f la w yers i n ourl ega lsy ste m . Thi s was an im age c am p aig n, afte r all. Bute ve n ac ce ptinga t f ac e va l ue the S ta te Ba r ’ s co nte n tio n th at th e ad s w er e d es ign ed to p ro m ot e p u b lic und er sta nd i ng o f a n d ther ef or e t rusti n the l ega lpro fessio n, an y c l a i m th at th e im ag e c am p aig n w as rea so n ab ly re l a t e d t o i mpr o v i ngthe qua l i t y o fl e g a ls e r v i c e s i s at be sts tr aine d a nd a t w or sta l i tt l e o dd. To s ta te the o bv i o us

— and as the arbi tr ato r re cogni zed

— a n a d c a mpai g n di r ec te d a t bo o st i ngs ag g i ngpub l i c o pi ni o n of the legal p rofession serves th e interests of la w yers , not thei r cl i ents orthe pu bl i c. In w h at sense was thi s a n ex pen di tu r e “n ec es saril y o r r ea so nabl y i nc ur r ed f o r the pu rpo s e o f

. . . i mpr o v i ngthe qua l i t y o f

. . . l e gal ser vic e[s ] , ” a s r equi re d by Keller ? 49 6 U. S

. a t 14
. The opi ni on co ntai ns a num bero fco ncl usor y a sse rt i ons on th i s po i nt

— e. g. , thatgr eat erpubli c trust as a ge nera l m at te r w ill yield be tt er co m m u n ica t i o n be tw ee n ind ivi du alcl i ents and thei r att or neys and ult i m ate l y l ead t o m or e c om p et en t le ga l ad vic e. P an el O p . at 2 4-2 5. T h is str i kes m e a s bo th im p l ausibl e a nd enti re l y s pecula ti ve; it is h igh ly a tt en u at ed as a m at te r of c on s t i t u tio n al jus tifi cati on a nd i n any eve nt i s co m ple tel y unsupp or ted o n thi s r e c o r d. 3N o. 09

- 4080 37

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 actuall y succ es sful i n accom plis hing it s stated p urpo se . ” Panel O p . at24 -2 5
. K el l er ’s germ aneness requi rem ent d oes not re quire cl ose sc ruti ny of a chal le nged ex pend itu re ofcom pu ls ory bar d u es, b u t it requ ires som eth ing m or e tha n m ere ra tion al-ba sis re vi ew, whi c h a ppl i es t o a l l l aws , st ar t s fro m a pre s um pt i on ofc ons t i t ut i ona lity, an d “de em s a l aw val i d i fan y j us t i fi c at i on f or i t m ay be im agined.” U n i te d St a t e s v. Sko i e n, N o. 08- 3770, 20 10 W L 27 35 74 7, at* 3 (7th C i r. J ul y 1 3, 20 10 ) ( c i t i ng V ancev. B radley, 4 4 0 U .S . 93 (19 7 9 )). K el l er ’ s germ aneness requi rem en t im p lem en ts the p ro tection s of the Fir st A m en d m en t; i tth e r e f o r e i s n o ta n a l o g o u s t o r a t i o n a l

-b a s i s r e v i e w , a s my col l e ag u es sug g est. P an el O p . at 24 -25 (“T he [ g erm an en ess] stan d ard of rev iew is d eferen tial, as w he n w e rev iew cha lleng ed legi sl atio n to d eterm ine w he the r it is reaso na b ly re la te d to a l eg iti m a te g o v er n m en ta l p u rp o se .”). The N i nth Ci r cui t’ s o pi ni on in G a rdn er, o n whi chthe panel heav i l y r el i es, i s l ong on rheto ri c and sho rt on reason ing. I t also m isses the w hole p oint of Keller

. G a rdn er r es ts i ts c o nc l us i o n e nt i r ely o n l o ftyt r ui sms abo utthe i m po r ta nc e o fl awy er s an d a n ak ed as se r ti o n tha t th e publ i c “n ee ds to kno w” abo utthe i r rol e in makingthe j usti ce s yst em work. Fr om thi s the cou rtco ncl ud es that th e N ev ad a S ta t e B ar ’s p u b lic-r ela tio n s c am p aig n is “hi ghl y ger m ane to the pu rpos es f or w hi ch th e Stat e Bar e xi sts
. ” G a rdn er, 28 4 F
. 3d at1 04 3. Th is is n o t th e cor r e c tl e g a ls t a nd a r d. T he p e r t i ne ntque s t i o n i s not w hether the chal l enged expend i ture i s re aso nab ly re

l ate d to any pu rpos e forw h i ch a baras soc i ati on e xi sts ; th at i s use l ess as a deci si on princi ple i fthe poi nt i s t o p ro tect free-sp eech ri gh ts in the cont ex t of forced bar-38 N o. 09

- 4080

A s th e p a n el o b se rv es , Thie l ’ s alt ernat ive holding provid es 4 s om e s uppor tf or a l oos e and h i ghl y de fer en t i al unde rs t andi ng ofthe ge rm ane ne s s r evi ew r equi re d by K el l er . Panel O p. at 28- 2 9
. Th iel app roved the use o f com pu ls ory bar d ues for a var i ety ofpr ogr am s s pons or ed by the St at e B ar ofW i s c onsin

— incl ud ing a m ock- tr ial com peti ti on and aw ards given t o r epo rt er s f or l aw- re lated wri t i ng

— bu t offered no explanatio n fo r t h is c o n cl u sio n . 94 F .3d at 40 5 (“A ll o f th es e [p ro g ra m s], its eem s, a re g eared toward s im prov ing the quali ty ofl egal se rvices in W is consi n. Un der K el l er, the y a re ge rm ane an d (co n tin u ed ...) ass oci ati on m em ber shi p. T he p er ti nent quest i on

— th e o ne the S up re m e Cour t s ai d i s the “guidi ng st andard” f or Fi rs t Am endm ent purpos es

— i s whether th e chal l enged expend i ture i s r eas onabl y r el ate d to o ne o fthe co ns t i t uti ona lly re lev a nt pu rpos es that j usti fy m andator y b ar m embe r sh i p: r egul at i o n o fthe b aro r i m pr o vingthe q u alit y of le ga l se r v i c es . Keller, 496 U
. S. at14
. The N i nth Cir cui t di d not a dd re ss thi s q u es tio n, an d i t i s t h e o n ly one that m att er s. The cou rtm ade no eff or t, thati s, to e x p l a i n h o w th e N e v a d a S t a t e B a r ’ s e x p e n d i t u r e o fc o mp u l s o r y b a r d u e s o n a p u b l i c - i ma g e c a mpa i g n f o r l a wy er s was “ ne ce ss ar i l y o r r ea so nabl y i nc ur r ed f o r the pu rpos e o f

. . . i m proving the qual i ty of

. . . l ega l ser vi ce[ s]
. ” G a rdn eri s unpers u as i ve. W e s houl d not f ol l ow it
. I n th e end, w hi l e the panelhas done an e xem pla ryj ob ofar ti c u l ating the co nsti tuti onalpri nci ple s that g over n thi s ca se, its appl i cati on o ftho se pri nci ple s e ffecti vel y di l utes them

. Ihave no obj ecti on t o a “ gener ous” 4N o. 09

- 4080 39

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 m ay be fund ed b y com pu ls ory du es , re g ardles s ofw hether the y are id eo log ically orien ted .”)
. M y collea g u es sum m arily re a ffirm th is a sp ec t o f Thie l

. Panel O p. at 28- 29 ( Thie l ’ s “u na nim ou s a s s e s s m e nto fth e ac t ua l g e r m a ne ne s s o f[ the c ha l l e ng e d] ac t i vi t i es r em ai ns s ound. ”)
. Thi s al t er nat i ve hol d ing i n Thie l, an d the p an el’ s end or sem en t of it he re, refl ect an im p licit c onc er n aboute xc es s i ve fede ra l

- c our ti nvol vem enti n the aff ai rs o f st at e bar as s oc i at i ons . I s har e thatc onc er n. Butthe s t a t e s u p r e me c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o ma k e b a r - a s s o c i a t i o n me mber s hi p m anda t or y f or al l l awyer s ope ra t es as a c ont i nui ng b u rd en on thei r Fi rs t Am endm ent ri ghts, w hich im poses con stitutio na l resp on sibilitie s on the Sta te B ar a nd m ak es a fed era l-cou rt role i n e v itab le, or at least u na v oid ab le. A nd in thi s c ontext, defer en c e does no tha ve a pa rt i c ul ar l y s t ro ng claim

. T he State B ar is no t ( as the Su p rem e C ou rt ob serv ed in K el l er ) “the typic al gov ernm ent of fic ial o r a g ency. ” 496 U.S

. at 12.

9- 9- 10 i nter preta ti on o fthe ge rm aneness r equi re m ent. Panel O p . at 2 8. B u t t h e p an el h as gon e w ell b ey on d “g en er ou s.” I fa p u b l i c - i ma g e c a mpa i g n de s i g n e d t o b e n e fi tl a wyer s ca n be consi dered g er m ane t o i m prov i ng the l ega l ser vi ces they provi de to thei r cl i ents, then th e g erm anen es s s ta n d a r d in th is c irc u it is n otm er ely ge n er ou s, it i s m eani ngl ess . Iwould r ehearthi s ca se en banc.