281:
constitutionality of a victim's bill of rights, the power of a workers’ compensation board to discipline attorneys, a requirement that attorney-public officials disclose names of clients, and the disqualification of a law firm; and (3) the adoption of resolutions by the State Bar's
Conference of Delegates endorsing a gun control initiative, disapproving the statements of a United States senatorial candidate regarding court review of a victim’s bill of rights, endorsing a nuclear weapons freeze initiative, and opposing federal legislation limiting federal-court jurisdiction over abortions, public school prayer, and busing. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction forbidding the State bar from using mandatory dues for ideological or political purposes.
715:
31:
290:
were similar to those of a labor union, and its authority to use mandatory dues for political or ideological purposes was similarly constrained. This opinion in turn was reversed by the
California Supreme Court in 1989. That court found that the State Bar functioned essentially as a government agency, and scrutinizing the Bar's activities under the First Amendment would impose an "extraordinary burden" on the organization's mission. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1989.
739:
727:
703:
600:
321:, Raymond L. Brosterhous, and 40 other attorneys who objected to the Bar’s continued use of their dues for political and ideological activities. This litigation eventually resulted in a court order that the Bar’s Conference of Delegates, lobbying, special activities designed to promote the careers of women and minorities, and other social and political programs could not constitutionally be funded by compulsory Bar dues.
691:
289:
The trial court granted summary judgment to the State Bar, ruling that, as a government agency, the Bar itself had a First
Amendment right to engage in political speech. This ruling was reversed by the California Court of Appeal, which, in a published decision, found that the State Bar's activities
276:
In 1982, when the complaint in this case was filed, the State Bar of
California was an active voice on political issues, both within California and nationally. The State Bar lobbied on matters pending before the legislature and before other state agencies, filed briefs in politically charged cases,
298:
In a unanimous decision by Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that attorneys may be compelled to belong to the State Bar, but that their mandatory dues could be used only to regulate the legal profession or improve the quality of legal services available to the people of the state.
280:
The objecting attorneys challenged the use of their dues for (1) lobbying on issues such as gun control, the death penalty, special education, exclusions from gift taxes, voter approval of low-rent housing projects, and immigration; (2) filing amicus curiae briefs in cases involving the
305:, that is, the objectors were entitled to an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.
252:. In this action, 21 California attorneys sued the State Bar, objecting to the agency's use of its members' dues to fund political and ideological activities that the members did not support. The attorneys were represented by the nonprofit public interest law firm
137:
Attorneys may be required to be members of a state bar association, but compulsory membership dues collected by the association may be used only to regulate the legal profession or improve the quality of legal services in the
533:
The State Bar of
California Test for Chargeabilty and Summary of State Bar Activities Permitted and Prohibited under Brosterhous Analysis (Distribution authorized by the Board of Governors February 5, 2000)
340:
240:
held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First
Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.
301:
774:
335:
299:
Reasoning that membership in the State Bar was analogous to membership in a labor union, the Court held that the Bar would have to implement the procedures established in
256:. The attorneys argued that such use of their compulsory dues violated their right to freedom of speech and freedom of association, or more precisely, the freedom
265:
615:
498:
469:
362:
120:
72:
764:
261:
572:
769:
330:
277:
and convened a
Conference of Delegates to adopt resolutions taking positions on highly contentious political and ideological issues.
604:
779:
759:
562:
Giving Texas
Lawyers Their Dues: The State Bar's Liability under Hudson and Keller for Political and Ideological Activities
535:
237:
35:
552:
Keller v. State Bar of
California: Freedom from Ideological Association for Members of Integrated Bar Associations
662:
626:
784:
105:
441:
248:
Attorneys licensed to practice in California are required by law to be members of, and pay dues to, the
108:
681:
644:
382:
719:
253:
249:
193:
161:
653:
317:, decision, resulting in a follow-up lawsuit in 1991 brought by the second-named plaintiff in
619:
573:“An Aliquot Portion of Their Dues”: A Survey of Unified Bar Compliance with Hudson and Keller
502:
473:
366:
124:
64:
743:
635:
8:
536:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/portals/0/documents/bog/minutes_00-02-05_4010_chargeabilty.pdf
505:
707:
369:
185:
173:
153:
383:"Supreme Court affirms attorneys' First Amendment protection from compelled speech"
205:
67:
197:
181:
753:
695:
671:
169:
731:
341:
List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment
116:
83:
101:
79:
54:
Eddie Keller, et al., Petitioners, v. State Bar of California, et al.
726:
599:
336:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
690:
30:
112:
775:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
679:
751:
576:, 1 Tex. Tech J. Tex. Admin. L. 23 (2000).
236:, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), was a case in which the
581:
444:, 255 Cal.Rptr. 542, 767 P.2d 1020 (1989).
313:The State Bar was slow to comply with the
765:United States Free Speech Clause case law
584:A Time to Speak Out: Thanks, Eddie Keller
549:
331:List of United States Supreme Court cases
293:
752:
554:, 35 St. Louis U. L.J. 903 (1991).
569:
559:
428:, 226 Cal. Rptr. 448 (Cal. App. 1986)
308:
18:1990 United States Supreme Court case
403:
401:
271:
564:, 28 St. Mary's L.J. 47 (1996).
13:
586:, 8 Mich. Bar J. (Feb. 2002).
543:
264:, as applied to the states by the
238:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
796:
770:United States Supreme Court cases
612:Keller v. State Bar of California
605:Keller v. State Bar of California
592:
466:Keller v. State Bar of California
438:Keller v. State Bar of California
426:Keller v. State Bar of California
398:
359:Keller v. State Bar of California
233:Keller v. State Bar of California
24:Keller v. State Bar of California
737:
725:
713:
701:
689:
598:
495:Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson
302:Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson
284:
29:
622:1 (1990) is available from:
527:
511:
488:
479:
243:
780:1990 in United States case law
459:
447:
431:
419:
410:
389:
375:
352:
1:
346:
7:
760:Legal history of California
324:
10:
801:
672:Oyez (oral argument audio)
520:, 496 U.S. at 16, citing
218:
213:
147:
142:
136:
131:
111:, 255 Cal.Rptr. 542, 767
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
583:
571:
561:
551:
260:to associate, under the
254:Pacific Legal Foundation
43:Argued February 27, 1990
250:State Bar of California
456:, 47 Cal. 3d at 1166.
162:William J. Brennan Jr.
294:Decision of the Court
222:Rehnquist, joined by
266:Fourteenth Amendment
104:1986); reversed, 47
100:226 Cal. Rptr. 448 (
78:110 S.Ct. 2228; 110
45:Decided June 4, 1990
663:Library of Congress
194:Sandra Day O'Connor
785:1990 in California
582:Bruce W. Neckers,
524:, 475 U.S. at 310.
309:Subsequent history
158:Associate Justices
86:2862; 58 USLW 4661
720:Freedom of speech
603:Works related to
485:496 U.S. at 13-14
407:496 U.S. at 6 n.2
272:Facts of the case
229:
228:
174:Thurgood Marshall
154:William Rehnquist
792:
742:
741:
740:
730:
729:
718:
717:
716:
706:
705:
704:
694:
693:
685:
676:
670:
667:
661:
658:
652:
649:
643:
640:
634:
631:
625:
602:
587:
585:
577:
575:
570:Ralph H. Brock,
565:
563:
560:Ralph H. Brock,
555:
553:
550:Mary Bannister,
538:
531:
525:
515:
509:
492:
486:
483:
477:
463:
457:
451:
445:
435:
429:
423:
417:
414:
408:
405:
396:
393:
387:
386:
379:
373:
356:
143:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
791:
790:
789:
750:
749:
748:
738:
736:
724:
714:
712:
702:
700:
688:
680:
674:
668:
665:
659:
656:
650:
647:
641:
638:
632:
629:
623:
595:
546:
544:Further reading
541:
532:
528:
516:
512:
493:
489:
484:
480:
476:806 (1989).
464:
460:
452:
448:
442:47 Cal. 3d 1152
436:
432:
424:
420:
415:
411:
406:
399:
395:496 U.S. at 5-6
394:
390:
381:
380:
376:
357:
353:
349:
327:
311:
296:
287:
274:
262:First Amendment
246:
206:Anthony Kennedy
196:
186:John P. Stevens
184:
172:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
798:
788:
787:
782:
777:
772:
767:
762:
747:
746:
734:
722:
710:
698:
678:
677:
645:Google Scholar
608:
594:
593:External links
591:
590:
589:
579:
567:
557:
545:
542:
540:
539:
526:
510:
487:
478:
458:
446:
430:
418:
416:496 U.S. at 6.
409:
397:
388:
374:
350:
348:
345:
344:
343:
338:
333:
326:
323:
310:
307:
295:
292:
286:
283:
273:
270:
245:
242:
227:
226:
220:
216:
215:
211:
210:
209:
208:
198:Antonin Scalia
182:Harry Blackmun
159:
156:
151:
145:
144:
140:
139:
134:
133:
129:
128:
127:806 (1989)
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
797:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
755:
745:
744:United States
735:
733:
728:
723:
721:
711:
709:
699:
697:
692:
687:
686:
683:
673:
664:
655:
646:
637:
628:
627:CourtListener
621:
617:
613:
609:
607:at Wikisource
606:
601:
597:
596:
580:
574:
568:
558:
548:
547:
537:
530:
523:
519:
514:
507:
504:
500:
496:
491:
482:
475:
471:
467:
462:
455:
450:
443:
439:
434:
427:
422:
413:
404:
402:
392:
384:
378:
371:
368:
364:
360:
355:
351:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
328:
322:
320:
316:
306:
304:
303:
291:
285:Prior history
282:
278:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
241:
239:
235:
234:
225:
221:
217:
212:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:Chief Justice
149:
148:
146:
141:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:1020 (1989);
114:
110:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
611:
529:
521:
517:
513:
508: (1986).
494:
490:
481:
465:
461:
453:
449:
437:
433:
425:
421:
412:
391:
377:
372: (1990).
358:
354:
318:
314:
312:
300:
297:
288:
279:
275:
257:
247:
244:Introduction
232:
231:
230:
223:
214:Case opinion
201:
189:
177:
165:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
170:Byron White
754:Categories
708:California
347:References
84:U.S. LEXIS
224:unanimous
119:granted,
102:Cal. App.
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
610:Text of
325:See also
219:Majority
82:1; 1990
682:Portals
636:Findlaw
132:Holding
675:
669:
666:
660:
657:
654:Justia
651:
648:
642:
639:
633:
630:
624:
522:Hudson
518:Keller
497:,
468:,
454:Keller
361:,
319:Keller
315:Keller
204:
202:·
200:
192:
190:·
188:
180:
178:·
176:
168:
166:·
164:
138:state.
106:Cal.3d
696:1990s
618:
501:
472:
365:
123:
117:cert.
97:Prior
620:U.S.
503:U.S.
474:U.S.
367:U.S.
125:U.S.
113:P.2d
109:1152
73:more
65:U.S.
63:496
732:Law
616:496
506:292
499:475
470:493
363:496
258:not
121:493
756::
614:,
440:,
400:^
268:.
684::
588:.
578:.
566:.
556:.
385:.
370:1
76:)
70:(
68:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.