Opinion ID: 791477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The LeClerc Plaintiffs

Text: 3 The LeClerc plaintiffs, Karen LeClerc, Guillame Jarry, Beatrice Boulord, and Maureen Affleck, are nonimmigrant aliens who hold degrees from foreign law schools and seek leave to sit for the Louisiana Bar. LeClerc and Jarry are French citizens admitted to the United States on J-1 student visas. 3 Boulourd, also a French citizen, was initially admitted to the United States on a J-1 student visa, but currently remains in the United States on an H-1B temporary worker visa. 4 Affleck is a Canadian citizen initially admitted to the United States on an L-2 spousal visa, 5 but currently remains in the United States on an H-1B temporary worker visa. 4 As graduates of foreign law schools seeking permission to sit for the Louisiana Bar, each plaintiff was required to apply for an equivalency determination pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 6 (Section 6). 6 Before the commencement of the LeClerc suit, Affleck applied for, and was denied an equivalency determination because her status did not comply with Section 3(B). The other plaintiffs filed for equivalency determinations after the suit commenced and were similarly refused. None of the plaintiffs appealed their equivalency denials as permitted by Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9 (Section 9). 7 5 On March 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, against the Louisiana Supreme Court 8 and the Chairman 9 and Vice-Chairman 10 of the Louisiana Committee on Bar Admissions (collectively defendants) in their official capacities. The plaintiffs challenged the enforcement of Section 3(B) and sought declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. They requested expedited discovery related to the adoption of Section 3(B), including records of the Louisiana Supreme Court's official meetings, processes, and opinions. The defendants moved to quash the plaintiffs' discovery requests, asserting judicial and legislative immunity. Finding the defendants judicially immune, a magistrate judge granted the motion. On April 17, 2003, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendants countered with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim based, inter alia, on standing, ripeness, Eleventh Amendment, judicial and legislative immunity, and abstention grounds. 6 The district court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denied as moot the plaintiffs' appeal of the magistrate judge's discovery ruling. 11 While rejecting the defendants' jurisdictional arguments, the court held on the merits that: (1) Section 3(B) is not preempted by federal immigration or trade policy; (2) Affleck lacked standing to assert a claim under the NAFTA; 12 (3) the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of either procedural or substantive Due Process; and (4) applying rational basis review, Section 3(B) is rationally related to legitimate state interests, and, thus, constitutional. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider on July 30, 2003. 13 Both parties timely noticed their appeals and cross-appeals.