Opinion ID: 2758297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Amendment Standing

Text: Because an analysis of Girvin and Anderson’s First Amendment standing requires us to delve into the merits of their claims, it is sufficient to note at this point of our opinion that the AOM Rule does not chill speech, nor does it infringe on attorneys’ rights to be present in court and express themselves. Even if attorneys are ineligible to be admitted in Arizona on motion, they may still gain admission by passing the UBE. The presence of alternative means to gain admission limits the amount of speech that might otherwise be restricted by the AOM Rule, and suggests that Anderson does not have First Amendment standing. NAAMJP does not have First Amendment standing. NAAMJP argues that it possesses First Amendment standing based on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). NAAMJP’s argument seems to be that since Citizens United recognizes that corporate organizations have certain First Amendment rights, NAAMJP does as well. However, even if NAAMJP enjoys First Amendment rights pursuant to Citizens United, NAAMJP is not claiming that its political speech is restricted. Rather, NAAMJP claims that the AOM Rule restricts the speech of its members, something its members cannot prove. 10 NAAMJP V. BERCH II. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause Since Girvin has established Article III standing, and we must consider the merits of Girvin and Anderson’s claims in order to fully evaluate their First Amendment standing, we now proceed with a consideration of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs argue, first, that the AOM Rule discriminates against attorneys admitted to the bar in states that do not have reciprocity with Arizona, and therefore, that the Rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the AOM Rule does not disadvantage a suspect class or infringe on a fundamental right, the Rule is subject to rational basis review. See Lupert v. Cal. State Bar, 761 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985) (“State and federal courts generally have subjected state bar admission restrictions to mere rational basis analysis.”). “To survive rational basis review, [the AOM Rule] must be ‘rationally related to a legitimate state interest.’” Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985)). The AOM Rule serves two legitimate state purposes. First, the AOM Rule helps Arizona regulate its bar: “The Supreme Court is extremely deferential to legislative classifications in actions challenging regulation of licensed professions.” Lupert, 761 F.2d at 1328. Moreover, by honoring reciprocal bar requirements, the state of Arizona helps to ensure that its attorneys are treated equally in other states. States that share reciprocity with Arizona will likely continue to admit Arizona-barred attorneys on motion because members of the bar in those states are eligible for reciprocal privileges in Arizona. NAAMJP V. BERCH 11 The AOM Rule serves these purposes without being unduly restrictive. Attorneys seeking admission in Arizona have alternative means to obtain Arizona Bar membership, namely by passing the UBE. Thus, we conclude that the AOM Rule does not violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. III. Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, Section 2 Plaintiffs next argue that the AOM Rule deprives them of a privilege protected by Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; namely, the right to practice law. In Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, the Supreme Court held that the practice of law is a fundamental right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it is “important to the national economy” and because it “has a noncommercial role and duty.” 470 U.S. 274, 281 (1985). We conclude that Arizona’s AOM Rule does not contravene Article IV, Section 2's Privileges and Immunities Clause because it does not favor Arizona’s in-state citizens over out-of-state citizens. The purpose of the Privilege and Immunities Clause is to prevent “a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own.” Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939). The AOM Rule is neutral: the State of Arizona imposes the same bar admission requirements on its own citizens as it does on citizens of other states. If a citizen of Arizona is admitted to the bar in a state that does not share reciprocity with Arizona, then the attorney is not eligible to be admitted to the Arizona Bar on motion, irrespective of the attorney’s residency or citizenship status. 12 NAAMJP V. BERCH The cases cited by Plaintiffs stand only for the proposition that bar admission rules that impose residency requirements on bar applicants violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. See Piper, 470 U.S. at 275 (resident of Vermont challenging New Hampshire’s limit of bar admission to New Hampshire residents); Sup Ct. of Va. v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59, 61 (1988) (resident of Illinois challenging Virginia’s limit of bar admission to Virginia residents). The AOM Rule, on the other hand, relies solely on state of bar admission, and applies equally to residents and non-residents of Arizona. Even if Arizona’s AOM Rule did infringe on a right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Rule is closely related to advancing a substantial state interest. See Friedman, 467 U.S. at 65. As noted supra, the state of Arizona has a considerable interest in regulating its state bar and in ensuring that attorneys licensed in Arizona will be treated equally in states having reciprocity with Arizona. Accordingly, the AOM Rule does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, Section 2. IV. Privileges and Immunities Clause, Fourteenth Amendment Plaintiffs also argue that the AOM Rule deprives them of a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has made clear that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protects those rights accruing from citizenship of the United States, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 77 (1872), and the right to practice law is not one of those rights. See Paciulan v. George, 229 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The courts and legal commentators have interpreted the [SlaughterNAAMJP V. BERCH 13 House] decision as rendering the Clause essentially nugatory.”). Plaintiffs seem to argue that the AOM Rule burdens their right to travel to Arizona from non-reciprocal states. The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause does recognize that travelers becoming permanent residents of a new state have “the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999). In this case that right is not infringed because the AOM Rule treats non-state residents the same way as it treats residents of Arizona. In Saenz, by contrast, California discriminated on the basis of residency by limiting welfare benefits during a recipient’s first year of California residency to the amount that the recipient would have received in the state of his prior residence. Id. at 492.