A federal judge in Oklahoma Wednesday partially dismissed an attorney's constitutional challenge to that state's bar association—a lawsuit that is strikingly similar to one pending against the State Bar of Texas.

The ruling dismissed two of three claims by Oklahoma attorney Mark Schell, marking the third time a state bar association has beat back similar allegations.

The attorneys bringing similar suits argue that using the bars' mandatory membership and dues to fund alleged ideological and political purposes—like advocating for gay rights—violates the Constitution's protections for free speech and freedom of association. They've initially failed with such arguments in three states, as bar associations in Oregon and North Dakota have notched rulings similar to the one in Oklahoma.

Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed two claims by plaintiff Schell but allowed one to proceed: Schell's challenge about whether the Oklahoma bar had the right procedures in place to protect lawyers who don't want to subsidize certain bar activities.

Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, who represents the Oklahoma plaintiffs, said they will appeal the dismissed claims. Goldwater Institute also represents attorneys who are appealing losses of similar claims against bar associations in Oregon and North Dakota.

"We're hopeful the Supreme Court will take one of these cases and end mandatory bar membership and fees across the country," Huebert said.

Carol Manning, director of communications for the Oklahoma bar, didn't respond to a request for comment before deadline.

Among other things, the Oklahoma defendants asserted Schell failed to state a claim because the bar's operations were constitutional under two U.S. Supreme Court cases—Lathrop v. Donohue, which found that compulsory bar membership and dues were constitutional, and Keller v. State Bar of California, which found that the bar can spend funds constitutionally on activities that regulate the legal profession and improve the quality of legal services.

The court agreed that two of Schell's claims failed, and noted it wasn't persuaded by his contention that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME required a different result. Janus involved payment of agency fees by nonmembers of a public employee union, but this case has differences, the court determined.

"There is also no suggestion in Janus that either Lathrop or Keller were overruled or otherwise called into question," the order said. "In such circumstances, the court is obliged to follow the cases which most directly control, and therefore declines to speculate as to whether the Supreme Court might reach some different result if it were to revisit either Lathrop or Keller."

In Texas, three attorneys and the Texas bar have raised similar arguments, and are awaiting a federal judge to rule on cross-motions for summary judgment.

Vinson & Elkins partner Tom Leatherbury, who represents the Texas bar, declined to comment.

Consovoy Park McCarthy partner Jeffrey Harris of Arlington, Virginia, who represents the Texas plaintiffs, didn't return an email seeking comment.

Read the order in Schell's case: