A federal judge has allowed a lawsuit to proceed, challenging the Wisconsin State Bar’s mandatory membership on the grounds that it allegedly violates the First Amendment rights of its members. The case, brought forward by attorney Daniel Suhr, contends that the bar’s use of mandatory dues to fund diversity programs discriminates against white men and infringes upon free speech.
U.S. Magistrate Stephen Dries denied the bar’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, opening the door for Suhr to explore whether the bar is financing “non-germane” activities with mandatory dues. This case raises questions about the legality of compulsory membership in bar associations that engage in political or ideological activities.
The U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled in 1990 that while mandatory bar associations can use dues to regulate the legal profession and enhance legal services, they are prohibited from funding political or ideological initiatives. Suhr’s lawsuit, however, challenges not just the use of dues but the very concept of compulsory membership itself.
The Wisconsin State Bar, led by its president Ryan Billings, has expressed confidence in the constitutionality of its operations, citing the failure of similar legal challenges in the past. Despite the ongoing legal battle, the bar has already made some concessions, adjusting the diversity fellowship program at the center of the dispute to be more inclusive of all law students in the state.
This lawsuit marks a critical moment in the broader debate over the role of state bars and the limits of their authority, particularly when it comes to politically charged initiatives like diversity programs.
