State Bar of Texas MENU search LOGIN TexasBarCLE Member Benefits Career Center TYLA FIND A LAWYER Mandatory Bar Challenges State Bar of Texas (McDonald et al v. Sorrels et al) Timeline and Related Litigation 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. The Bar is now working with the district court to bring the litigation to a conclusion. 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. TIMELINE March 6, 2019 Plaintiffs filed complaint March 25, 2019 Plaintiffs filed motion for preliminary injunction and motion for partial summary judgment on liability April 25 – May 17, 2019 Amicus briefs filed in support of Plaintiffs: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Goldwater Institute Amicus briefs filed in support of the State Bar: Texas Legal Ethics Counsel Former Presidents of the State Bar of Texas, Former Chairs of the Texas Bar College, and Former Chairs of the State Bar of Texas Council of Chairs Texas Access to Justice Commission May 13, 2019 State Bar filed responsive briefs, cross-motion for summary judgment, and motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction May 23, 2019 Status conference held; Court scheduled summary-judgment merits hearing for August 1. Plaintiffs agreed to pay their 2019- 2020 State Bar dues. May 31, 2019 Plaintiffs filed responses and replies. June 18, 2019 State Bar filed reply in support of cross-motion for summary judgment August 1, 2019 Summary-judgment merits hearing held; motion for preliminary injunction dismissed May 29, 2020 Judge granted State Bar’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment June 2, 2020 Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to the 5th Circuit June 30, 2020 Plaintiffs filed opening brief with the 5th Circuit July 30, 2020 State Bar filed brief with the 5th Circuit March 4, 2021 Oral arguments held at the 5th Circuit July 2, 2021 5th Circuit Opinion July 7 & 8, 2021 State Bar notified the 5th Circuit it did not intend to file a petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, and the 5th Circuit mandate issued August 30, 2021 District court held status conference regarding remedies phase of the case September 30, 2021 State Bar files summary of action taken at Board of Directors meeting on September 24, 2021, regarding rule and policy changes in response to 5th Circuit’s decision November 24, 2021 Plaintiffs filed petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court For a list of all of the McDonald v. Sorrels filings, please visit this page. STATE BAR OF TEXAS (BENNETT V. STATE BAR OF TEXAS) Class action complaint OTHER MANDATORY BAR CHALLENGES State Bar Association of North Dakota (Fleck v. Wetch ) 8th Circuit Decision, 8.17.17 Supreme Court Order Vacating and Remanding Brief of Appellant on Remand Brief of Appellee on Remand Amicus Filings in Fleck v. Wetch Amicus of Charles Herring, Jr. et al. Amicus of the State Bar of California Amicus of the Missouri Bar Joint Amicus of the State Bars of Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, South Dakota, and Wyoming Appellant's Reply Brief Oral Argument Recording (MP3) Appellate Post Argument Submission 8th Circuit Decision 8.30.19 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Extension Letter Additional Amicus Filings in Fleck v. Wetch Amicus of Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, and Atlantic Legal Foundation Amicus of Liberty Justice Center and Mackinac Center for Public Policy Amicus of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Reason Foundation Amicus of 1889 Institute Brief in Opposition of Cert. for Petra Hulm Brief in Opposition of Cert. for Joe Wetch, Aubrey Fiebelkorn-Zuger, and Tony Weiler Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Certiorari Denied Petition for Rehearing Louisiana State Bar (Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar and the Louisiana Supreme Court) Oklahoma Bar Association (Schell v. Gurich) Complaint Exhibit Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Amended Complaint Recusal Order Williams Motion to Dismiss Oklahoma Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss DeClerck Motion to Dismiss Oklahoma Bar Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Oklahoma Bar’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Justices’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Williams’ Motion to Dismiss Order Answer of the Chief Justice and Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Answer of Timothy DeClerck Answer of John Williams Answer of Bar Board of Governors Scheduling Order Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief Oklahoma Bar Association Keller Policy Order Judgment Appellant’s Opening Brief Appellant’s Appendix Appellee Brief 10th Circuit Decision Plaintiff’s Petition for Rehearing Order Defendants’ Request to Extend Response Deadline Defendants’ Opposition to Rehearing Petition Order Revised 10th Circuit Opinion Judgment Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court Oregon State Bar (Crowe v. Oregon State Bar) Oregon AG Amicus Plaintiffs’ Response to AG Amicus Magistrate Findings and Recommendation Plaintiffs’ Objections to Findings and Recommendation Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objection to Findings and Recommendation Order Adopting Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation Notice of Appeal in Case 3:18-cv-1591-JR Notice of Appeal in Case 3:18-cv-02139-JR Appellants’ Opening Brief Excerpts of Record Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opening Brief Appellants’ Excerpt of Record Defendant-Appellee’s Answering Brief (Crowe v. Oregon Bar) Defendant-Appellee’s Supplemental Excerpts of Record Volume 1 of 1 (Crowe v. Oregon Bar) 28(j) Letter Opinion (United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Answer to Complaint Certiorari Petition Certiorari Petition Appendix Waiver Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 1889 Institute Amicus Brief Buckeye Institute Amicus Brief First Liberty Institute Amicus Brief Lawyers United Amicus Brief Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, et al Amicus Brief Oregon State Bar (Gruber v. Oregon State Bar) Magistrate Findings and Recommendation Order Adopting Magistrate’s Recommendations Notice of Appeal Appeal Docketing Letter Appellants’ Opening Brief Appellees' Answering Brief Appellees’ Supplemental Excerpt of Record 9th Circuit Order Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Index Answer to Complaint Waiver Brief in Support of Summary Judgment Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Utah State Bar Complaint for Declaratory and Injunction Relief Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 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) KNOWLEDGE CENTER LEGAL VENDORS MERCHANDISE STATE BAR JOBS ADVERTISE SITE MAP The State Bar of Texas presents the information on this web site as a service to our members and other Internet users. While the information on this site is about legal issues, it is not legal advice. Moreover, due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. CONTACT © 2021 State Bar of Texas | 800.204.2222 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Reporting Fraud Member Fees Objections