Samuel Edward Trapp v. John Gunn, et al.

Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine foreclose a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court against outsidethe-licensure-process. individual influencers of a state’s attorney licensing process when the individual influencers actions negatively affect application and/or create a prerequisite to eligibility for licensure outside of any published Rule for admission? Does the state Supreme Court’s judicial and administrative affirm­ ation of the actions, findings and decisions of these unauthorized individual influencers mean that the fines and findings of such third-party unsanctioned and unlawful independent processes are inextricably inter­ twined with the state court sua sponte order imposing a fine years later, as the district court held in this matter; or does inextricably intertwined not protect such third party influencers as the 11th Circuit determined inBehr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206 (11th Cir. 2021); and as the 8th Circuit determined in Carter v. Ludwick, (8th Cir. 2021).

Is it an impermissible delegation of authority from a state Supreme Court to a bar association, as this Court held in D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), when the chief licensing authority in a state requires a potential bar applicant to ‘reimburse’ a bar fund in order to establish future eli­ gibility to submit an application to practice law, even though the applicant is otherwise eligible to submit an application under the relevant promulgated state Rules for licensure, the applicant has never been found to have violated any rule of conduct related to any such bar fund proceeding, and the bar fund has not properly been granted any state or constitutional authority to investigate attorney misconduct? Does Ex Parte Young,