Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Schuyler File v. Margaret Hickey, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 20-2387 · judgment April 29, 2022

Certiorari denied · January 23, 2023
Pre-decision estimate: 7% cert probability (95% interval 4%–12%)

Before the decision, about 1.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Question presented

A “mandatory” or “integrated” bar is “an association of attorneys in which membership and dues are required as a condition of practicing law in a State.” Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1, 5 (1990). In Keller, this Court held that mandatory bar dues could be used to “constitutionally fund activities germane to” the goals of “regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.” Id. at 13–14. Keller built on this Court’s decision in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), which held that mandatory bar membership is “no different from” “union-shop agreements.” Id. at 842 (plurality opinion). Keller thus adopted wholesale the “germaneness” test of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which governed “whether, consistent with the First Amendment, agency-shop dues of nonunion public employees could be used to support political and ideological causes of the union.” Keller, 496 U.S. at 9. In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, however, this Court overruled Abood, holding that it “was poorly reasoned,” had “led to practical problems and abuse,” and was “inconsistent with other First Amendment cases.” 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2460 (2018). As Chief Judge Sykes recognized below, “[w]ith Abood overruled, the foundations of Keller have been shaken,” and “[t]he tension between Janus and Keller is hard to miss.” App. 11. The question presented is: Whether membership in a mandatory state bar is subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Daniel Robert Suhr
Liberty Justice Center

For respondent
Roberta Florence Howell
Foley & Lardner LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
8 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Jan 23 2023
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jan 04 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/20/2023.
  3. Jan 03 2023
    Reply of petitioner Schuyler File filed. (Distributed)
    Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
  4. Dec 19 2022
    Brief of respondents Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices in opposition filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  5. Nov 28 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Inc. filed.
    Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
  6. Nov 07 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 28, 2022.
  7. Nov 03 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 28, 2022 to December 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
    Main Document
  8. Oct 28 2022
    Response Requested. (Due November 28, 2022)
  9. Oct 19 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
  10. Oct 13 2022
    Reply of petitioner Schuyler File filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  11. Sep 29 2022
    Brief of respondents Margaret Hickey and Larry Martin in opposition filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  12. Sep 29 2022
    Letter of notice of substitution of respondents Margaret Hickey and Larry Martin received.
    Main Document
  13. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  14. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  15. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  16. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  17. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Pelican Institute for Public Policy filed.
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  18. Aug 31 2022
    Amicus brief of Mackinac Center for Public Policy not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted)(September 02, 2022)
  19. Aug 31 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed.
    Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
  20. Aug 30 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed. (Sept. 2, 2022)
    Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
  21. Aug 25 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 30, 2022.
  22. Aug 24 2022
    Waiver of right of respondents Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, Justices Patience Roggensack, Ann Walsh Bradley, et al. to respond filed.
    Main Document
  23. Aug 24 2022
    Motion of Kathleen Brost and Larry Martin to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
    Main Document
  24. Jul 28 2022
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)
    PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service