The June 1 deadline to pay Texas bar dues is looming for three attorneys who are suing the State Bar of Texas, alleging that mandatory dues violate their constitutional rights.

In a new court filing Wednesday, the plaintiffs noted that they got their dues notices, which they see as coercing them into joining and funding the Texas bar just so they can engage in their profession.

"The bar continues to engage in political and ideological activities, including lobbying; and the bar continues to employ wholly inadequate opt-out procedures for members who object to its political activities," said a May 6 notice in the case, McDonald v. Sorrels.

As the litigation played out in 2019, the plaintiffs—Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer and Mark Pulliam—agreed to delay a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction that was asking the court to protect them from having to pay 2019 bar dues. They wound up paying those dues under protest, partly because they believed U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of the Western District of Texas was planning to rule quickly on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.

According to the notice, the plaintiffs thought the court was going to expedite the case. While they kept their motion for a preliminary injunction alive, they felt they didn't need a decision on that motion as long as the court resolved the case quickly.

But now that the day to pay 2020 dues is approaching, the plaintiffs are asking the court for a status conference "to discuss how they should proceed with the upcoming dues cycle." They wonder if they should set a hearing for their preliminary injunction motion.

After an August 2019 hearing, Yeakel told the parties' attorneys that he would rule quickly, and he had everything that he needed in the record to dispose of the case on the merits. However, Yeakel also said at that hearing that he was dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction.

The attorney-plaintiffs claim the bar violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to join and pay mandatory dues, which the bar then spends on alleged political and ideological activities. They object to the bar's LGBT continuing legal education offerings, pro bono program for undocumented immigrants, attorney diversity programs, a $65 legal aid fee and the bar's legislative affairs activities.

The bar has denied the plaintiffs' allegations and argued that Janus shouldn't apply to mandatory bar associations and that it's already complying with other U.S. Supreme Court cases that directly impact bar associations by ensuring all dues pay for core functions like regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.

The case is similar to legal challenges that lawyers have filed against mandatory bar associations in other states, which all rely on a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which ruled that public sector nonunion workers cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Multiple courts have ruled against the lawyer-plaintiffs in the cases in other states.

Related stories: