Three Texas attorneys have lost their claims that the State Bar of Texas violated their constitutional rights by allegedly using bar dues for political speech.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin ordered that plaintiffs Tony McDonald, Josh Hammer and Mark Pulliam, who has an inactive license, take nothing from their lawsuit and also pay the costs for the Texas Bar, said the final judgment in McDonald v. Sorrels.

State Bar of Texas President Randy Sorrels said in a statement that he's pleased about the ruling.

"Almost six decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports the constitutionality of the unified bar structure," Sorrels said. "The State Bar is carrying out its statutory obligations by regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services in Texas."

Plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey Harris, partner in Consovoy McCarthy Park in Arlington, Virginia, declined to comment.

McDonald is one of many lawsuits filed nationally challenging mandatory bar membership in the wake of the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which overturned decades of precedent by ruling that public-sector non-union workers cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Lawyer-plaintiffs in other states have also seen courts dismiss their claims. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected one of these appeals, in Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, writing that Janus casts doubt on past precedent regarding mandatory bar associations

In McDonald, the court explained its ruling in an order on cross-motions for summary judgment. It explained that the plaintiffs argued that Janus overruled two previous U.S. Supreme Court cases, Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California, that were specific to bar associations and said mandatory dues were constitutional as long as the bar spent the money on improving legal services or regulating the profession.

"Keller and Lathrop directly control under the facts of this case, and therefore bind this court," Yeakel wrote in the order. "The court finds no basis for holding that Janus overrules Keller."

Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule those decisions, the order said.

The Texas Bar activities that the plaintiffs challenged here comply with Keller because they further the regulation of the legal profession and improvement of legal services. For example, the bar has established multiple steps to make sure its legislative lobbying activities comply with Keller, Yeakel wrote.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs arguments about a process that's in place for lawyers to object to the way the Texas Bar spends their membership dues. Yeakel wrote that lawyers could object at multiple public meetings before budgets are passed, and they can file a protest about specific expenses.

The order said, "Because the bar has adequate procedural safeguards in place to protect against compelled speech and because mandatory bar membership and compulsory fees to not otherwise violate the First Amendment, plaintiffs' claim that the bar unconstitutionally coerces them into funding allegedly non-chargeable activities without a meaningful opportunity to object necessarily fails as a matter of law."

Read the order:

Related stories: