Document: 489 U.S. 546 109 S.Ct. 1294 103 L.Ed.2d 559 Geoffrey W. BARNARD, etc., Petitionerv.Susan Esposito THORSTENN, et al. VIRGIN ISLANDS BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner v. Susan Nos. 87-1939, 87-2008. Argued Jan. 11, 1989. Decided March 6, Syllabus The District Court of the Virgin Islands' Local Rule 56(b) provides that before an otherwise qualified attorney is admitted to Islands Bar, he must "allege and prove satisfaction" Committee Bar Examiners has "resided in Isl nds for at least one year immediately preceding his proposed admission," that, "[i]f practice, intends continue reside practice law Islands." Respondents Thorstenn DeVos—who do not Islands—applied take bar examination, but their applications were rejected because they did satisfy 56(b)'s residency requirements. They filed suit Court, seeking a declaration requirements violate Privileges Immunities Clause Art. IV, § 2, Constitution, enjoin enforcement against them. court granted summary judgment petitioners—the Chairman Association—concluding reasons offered requirements, grounded unique conditions Islands, substantial enough justify discrimination nonresidents. However, Appeals reversed, ruling invalid under Frazier Heebe, 482 641, 107 2607, 96 557, which this invoked its supervisory power invalidate certain Eastern Louisiana. In light ruling, address respondents' claim Clause. Held: 1. will exercise case, since both nature reach implicate interests beyond federal system. Although it vested with jurisdiction district court, also original over matters local concurrent courts criminal matters, serves as appellate decisions rendered by courts. Moreover, application itself extends system territorial Pp. 551-552. 2. Clause, none justifications support are sufficient meet petitioners' burden demonstrating nonresidents warranted objective bears close or relation such objective. 552-558. (a) Petitioners' contention geographical isolation together irregular airline telephone service mainland, make difficult attend proceedings held little advance notice, insufficient justification. could protect requiring lawyers who great distance retain would be available unscheduled meetings hearings. P. 554. (b) Court's finding delay caused trying accommodate schedules nonresident attorneys increase massive caseload suffers Any nonresidents' travel can relieved them associate counsel. Territory applies may solve problem congested dockets discriminating Furthermore, conflicting appearances appropriate orders prompt speedy trials. 5554-555 (c) delays publication require exclusion unable maintain adequate level professional competence unpersuasive. It assumed lawyer anticipates I lands taking examination paying annual dues inform himself laws Territory. fact most recent legal materials on current basis no more than residents. 555-556. (d) Association does have resources personnel supervision ethics nationwide membership justification, increased brings revenue, presumably pay any additional administrative burdens. problems faced petitioners monitoring ethical conduct greater those mainland State limited resources. 556-557. (e) Also unavailing argument necessary strict fair 16, requires each active member accept appointments appear behalf indigent defendants, interpreted only appointed defendant. strong securing representation indigents protected allowing substitute colleague if particular appearance. some circumstances detrimental goal competent defendants attorney, whether resident nonresident, personally. fact, explicitly allows counsel another where justice require. speculation unwilling enter into arrangements when unavailable If fails rights defendant, action. 557-558. 842 F.2d 1393 (CA3 1988), affirmed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SCALIA, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. 559. Maria Tankenson Hodge, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V.I., petitioners. Cornish F. Hitchcock, Washington, D.C., respondents. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 order demonstrate she resided admitted, Islands. question us these lawful. 2 * admission Bar," V.I.Code Ann., Tit. 5, App. V., 56(b)(4) (1982); Islands," 56(b)(5). rule courts.1 3 Lloyd De Vos members good standing Bars States New York Jersey, City. Neither respondent resides spring 1985, respondents applied 56(b). petitioner Barnard, Examiners, Article IV our decision Supreme Hampshire Piper, 470 274, 105 1272, 84 205 (1985). sought 4 On June 21, while reserving merits, ordered allowed examination. took passed. intervened, all parties submitted motions supporting affidavits. petitioners, concluding Pet. Cert. 64a-67a. 5 While was pending appeal Third Circuit, we decided 557 (1987), contained rules United A divided panel reversed given essence same Heebe. See No. 87-3034 (CA3, Sept. 30, 1987), vacated sub nom. 833 29 1987). case reheard en banc, majority full agreed (1988). banc emphasized alternative less restrictive means, short requirement, assure bear responsibilities comparable imposed attorneys. Id., 1396. view determination Heebe controlled F.2d, 1397, n. 6. 6 We certiorari, 487 1232, 108 2895, 101 929 (1988), now affirm. II 7 supra, discriminatory expressed "no doubt" 8 Without attempting define limits power, decline apply case. Both o As former, form Congress Revised Organic Act 1954, 68 Stat. 506, see 48 U.S.C. §§ 1611-1616 (1982 ed. Supp. IV); generally 1541-1645, institution attributes court. 1612(a) ed., IV), 1612(b), well 1612(c). 1613a IV). purposes, "shall considered established law." 1612(b). similarly Unlike confined so governs 1, supra. 9 Because intertwined operation 56, examine issue power. III 10 contend violates made applicable Act. 1561. Petitioners concede instrumentality Government subject through Tr. Oral Arg. 5-6. 11 Constitution "Citizens shall entitled Citizens several States." When challenged restriction deprives privilege immunity unless "(i) there reason difference treatment; (ii) practiced relationship State's objective." U.S., 284, S.Ct., 1278; Virginia Friedman, 59, 65, 2260, 2264, 56 deciding objectives, consider, among other things, means regulation available. 1278. 12 settled passes state qualifies interest 2264; 279-283, 1275-1278. need consider here treating differently, chosen total from Territory's legitimate objectives. 13 offer five 56(b), track recited First, States, notice. Second, cite suffers. Third, lack access statutes, regulations, opinions prevent maintaining law. Fourth, argue membership. Finally, exert much energy arguing 16 manner. That represent regular basis. V, (1982). find Island's objective.2 14 answer first based unreliable service, found Piper. here, argued "[e]ven conscientious residing distant hearing proceeding." 286, 1279. justification requirement two reasons. likely high percentage trouble place convenient Hampshire. 286-287, 1279-1280. observation went hold Piper Hampshire, 287, 1280. solution substantially related assuring notice proceedings. 15 second proffered similar first. unusually large increasing caseload, countenance interruptions conflicts mainland. To extent reiterates point addressed above, response applies. part alter analysis. Quite aside paradox citing extreme exclude attorneys, clear State, applies, Nor justifying bar. Jersey inconvenienced request appearance York. But closing Further, persuaded competence. said assume "a lawyer—any resident—would disserve clients failing familiarize [local law]." 285, dues, ibid., And although allege materials, statutes basis, published how All residents review slip visiting offices clerks judges. Affidavit Patricia D. Steele, 45. think either realistic practical resort regularity, nonresidents, occasional so, cannot unpublished materials. note, moreover, record discloses after initial affidavits Continuing Legal Education began subscription courts, William L. Blum, 51. short, alleged difficulties knowledge drastic measure excluding class. 17 fourth contention, membership, here. Increased revenue dues. Each pays fee $200 association $100, license $500. There believe moneys received burden. fear monitor practitioners, note can, do, rely character information compiled National Conference Examiners. regard, 18 final somewhat substantial, though ultimately unavailing. Under remain appea defendants. 16(A) According affidavit President Association, expect receive about four times per year. 44. Once appointed, duty "to communicate defendant incarceration promptly possible later days date clerk's mailing appointment." 16(B)(f). statute specifically provide, interprets 66a. individual time constraints Speedy Trial Act, 3161-3174, virtually impossible work 65a-66a. 19 recognized share representing condition Bar. That, however, quite what denied feasible him personally determine too heavy privileges persuasive why event contrary characterization personal hard fast rule, For instance, expert trusts estates, prior experience procedure, seem counterproductive designed serve text appears recognize explicit provision require, another. 16(B)(j) 20 effort explain seemingly sensible intrusive predict willing required unavailable. Such speculation, out, handling cases knows arrange handle This possibility not, blanket 21 sum, neither nor objectives court's Rule. commercial exchange between Union unsophisticated exists today States. Nevertheless, Founders, wisdom, thought important sense nationhood genuine treat equal By extending respect 22 extended Accordingly, 23 ordered. 24 Chief whom O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 25 (1985), violated Today reasoning limiting will, there. agree durational dealing "right" interstate travel. E.g., Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 89 1322, 600 (1969). conclusion simple Accepting compared upholding even view. reveals existence factual disputes reverse below remand trial issues. true "[t]he [is] integrated comprising pursuant provisions . .," 51(a), "[n]o ttorney government except governing pro hac vice participation litigation inactive bar, 51(b). cross-motions had accounts of, inter alia, ease communications continental 32-46. concluded create material fact. 1393, 1395, 1988). points disagreement analysis facts included true.

Category: 1