Cyrus Mark Sanai v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Under California’s State Bar Act as authoritatively interpreted by California’s appellate courts, the State Bar, the California Supreme Court, and their Ex Parte Young defendants are immune from suit in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or any other lawsuit asserting federal constitutional claims arising from attorney discipline because state trial courts are stripped of jurisdiction. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6800 et seq., Barry v. State Bar, 2 Cal.5th 218, 322-3 (2017), citing Jacobs v. State Bar, 20 Cal.3d 191, 196 (1977). Petitioner Cyrus Sanai presents the following questions:

1. Does the statutory immunity that state agencies and officials enjoy in California state court from lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as to imposition of attorney discipline invalidate such proceedings under Williams v. Reed, 145 S.Ct. 465 (2025) for violating the Supremacy Clause?

2. If California’s attorney discipline system violates the Supremacy Clause under Williams v. Reed, supra, does such violation constitute “some other grave reason which should convince” a federal court addressing a reciprocal attorney discipline case “that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do” as articulated in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)?

3. Given that Williams u. Reed, supra was published prior to the final judgment imposing