496 U.S. 1 (1990)
The State Bar of California is an organization created under California law.1 It serves to regulate the state's legal profession.2 Membership and dues payment are required as a condition of practicing law in the state.3 The Bar's broad statutory mission is to promote the improvement of the administration of justice.4
The State Bar performs a variety of regulatory functions. These include examining applicants for admission, formulating rules of professional conduct, disciplining members for misconduct, and preventing unlawful practice of the law.5 It also engages in lobbying the Legislature, filing amicus curiae briefs, holding an annual conference of delegates, and conducting education programs.6 These additional activities are financed principally through membership dues.7
In 1982, twenty-one members of the State Bar filed a lawsuit in state court against the organization and its Board of Governors. The petitioners claimed that the Bar used their mandatory dues to advance political and ideological causes to which they did not subscribe.8 Specific activities included lobbying on legislation concerning polygraph tests, armor-piercing ammunition, air pollution, and guest-worker programs.9 The complaint also referenced resolutions endorsing gun control and nuclear freeze initiatives.10
The trial court granted summary judgment to the State Bar.11 The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision.12 The Supreme Court of California then reversed the Court of Appeal by a divided vote.13 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1989.14
The petitioners sought an injunction to prevent the use of mandatory dues for the challenged activities.15 They also requested relief regarding the Bar's use of its name in connection with political causes.16 The case reached the Supreme Court after the state courts had addressed the dues issue but not the name claim.17
Whether lawyers admitted to practice in California may be required to join the State Bar of California and pay mandatory dues?18
States may require lawyers to join an integrated bar and pay reasonable dues.19 This supports the regulation of the legal profession and the improvement of legal services.20 The bulk of such activities serve the legitimate end of elevating educational and ethical standards without reference to the political process.21
Yes. The State Bar of California is an organization created under California law. It serves to regulate the state's legal profession. Membership and dues payment are required as a condition of practicing law in the state. The Bar's broad statutory mission is to promote the improvement of the administration of justice.
The State Bar performs a variety of regulatory functions. These include examining applicants for admission, formulating rules of professional conduct, disciplining members for misconduct, and preventing unlawful practice of the law. It also engages in lobbying the Legislature, filing amicus curiae briefs, holding an annual conference of delegates, and conducting education programs. These additional activities are financed principally through membership dues.
In 1982, twenty-one members of the State Bar filed a lawsuit in state court against the organization and its Board of Governors. The petitioners claimed that the Bar used their mandatory dues to advance political and ideological causes to which they did not subscribe. Specific activities included lobbying on legislation concerning polygraph tests, armor-piercing ammunition, air pollution, and guest-worker programs. The complaint also referenced resolutions endorsing gun control and nuclear freeze initiatives.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the State Bar. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court of California then reversed the Court of Appeal by a divided vote. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1989.
The petitioners sought an injunction to prevent the use of mandatory dues for the challenged activities. They also requested relief regarding the Bar's use of its name in connection with political causes. The case reached the Supreme Court after the state courts had addressed the dues issue but not the name claim. These facts establish that the requirement of membership and dues is constitutional under the principles from Lathrop v. Donohue.22
Lawyers admitted to practice in California may be required to join the State Bar of California and pay mandatory dues.23
Whether the State Bar of California may use compulsory membership dues to fund lobbying, amicus filings, conference resolutions, and other activities of a political or ideological nature?24
The State Bar may use compulsory dues only for activities necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services available to the people of the State.25 It may not fund activities of an ideological nature which fall outside those areas.26
No. The State Bar has engaged in lobbying for or against state legislation prohibiting state and local agency employers from requiring employees to take polygraph tests, prohibiting possession of armor-piercing handgun ammunition, creating an unlimited right of action to sue anybody causing air pollution, and requesting Congress to refrain from enacting a guest-worker program.27 The complaint also referenced resolutions endorsing a gun control initiative and a nuclear weapons freeze initiative.28 These activities have political or ideological coloration and are not reasonably related to the advancement of regulating the profession or improving legal services.29
The State Bar of California may not use compulsory membership dues to fund lobbying, amicus filings, conference resolutions, and other activities of a political or ideological nature.30