Hat tip: How Appealing. Ninth Circuit decision below. Excerpt from Summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of justices of the Arizona Supreme Court in an
action challenging Arizona Supreme Court Rule 34(f), which
describes how experienced attorneys can be admitted on
motion to the State Bar of Arizona.
Rule 34(f) permits admission on motion to the Arizona
Bar for attorneys who are admitted to practice law in states
that permit Arizona attorneys to be admitted to the bars of
those states on a basis equivalent to Arizona’s, but requires
attorneys admitted to practice law in states that do not have
such reciprocal admission rules to take the uniform bar exam
in order to gain admission to the Arizona Bar.
The panel held that plaintiffs established Article III
standing based on injuries suffered by plaintiff Alison Girvin,
a member of the State Bar of California, who took and failed
Arizona’s uniform bar exam and was unable to practice as an
Arizona attorney.
The panel held that plaintiffs failed to establish that the
Arizona Rule is unconstitutional on Fourteenth Amendment,
First Amendment, or Privileges and Immunities Clause
grounds. The panel therefore rejected plaintiffs’ claims that
the Arizona Rule discriminates against attorneys admitted to
the bar in states that do not have reciprocity with Arizona.
The panel further held that the Arizona Rule (1) does not
favor Arizona’s in-state citizens over out-of-state citizens;
and (2) is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction
that serves a substantial government interest. The panel held
that any negative impact on interstate commerce stemming
from the Arizona Rule was mitigated by the existence of
alternative means of admission to the Arizona Bar. Finally,
the panel affirmed the district court’s order denying
plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a) to join a John Doe plaintiff.