Oregon attorneys represented by the Goldwater Institute filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court last week requesting consideration of their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of mandatory bar associations for attorneys. Crowe v. Oregon State Bar originated after the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities. Attorneys Daniel Crowe, Lawrence Peterson, and the Oregon Civil Liberties Attorneys filed the lawsuit in 2018, asserting violations of free speech and freedom of association.
The lawsuit has wound its way twice up the courts through appeals. The case arose after the bar published a statement in its magazine claiming that President Donald Trump promoted white nationalism. The plaintiffs argued that the statement was non-germane to the bar’s regulatory purpose, constituted compelled political speech, and infringed on their freedom of association by forcing them to be members of an organization engaging in ideological activities they disagreed with.
Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo first dismissed the lawsuit, then U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, an Obama appointee, agreed and affirmed the dismissal in 2019. He said the statements were “germane to improving the quality of legal services,” promoting access to justice and a fair judicial system.
A panel of three judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by President Barack Obama, affirmed the lower judges’ decision in part and reversed in part in 2021, and remanded the case back to the trial court. U.S. Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland wrote the opinion, joined by U.S. Circuit Judge John B. Owens and Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, sitting by designation from the Northern District of California.
Read the rest of the article at The Arizona Sun Times