No. 21-974

Sylvia Borunda Firth, et al. v. Tony K. McDonald, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-01-06
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: administrative-agency civil-rights first-amendment free-speech free-speech-clause government-speech judicial-department keller-v-state-bar overrule-precedent state-bar
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2022-04-01
Related Cases: 21-800 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the State Bar of Texas qualifies as a government agency for purposes of the government speech doctrine

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The plaintiffs in this case—members of the mandatory State Bar of Texas—have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which has been docketed as Case Number 21-800. Although the defendants—the voting members of the Texas State Bar’s Board of Directors sued only in their official capacities—believe that the plaintiffs’ certiorari petition should be denied, they conditionally cross-petition for this Court’s review of the following questions: 1. Whether the State Bar of Texas, which is “a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judicial department of [the Texas] government,” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 81.011(a), qualifies as a government agency for purposes of the government speech doctrine, such that the State Bar of Texas’s speech is “not subject to scrutiny under the [First Amendment’s] Free Speech Clause,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 464 (2009). 2. To the extent that this Court’s case law—including Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990)—precludes applying the government speech doctrine to the State Bar of Texas’s speech, whether that precedent should be overruled. (D

Docket Entries

2022-04-04
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
2022-03-14
Reply of petitioners Sylvia Firth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-28
Brief of respondents Tony McDonald, et al. in opposition filed.
2022-01-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 28, 2022.
2022-01-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 7, 2022 to February 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 7, 2022)

Attorneys

Sylvia Firth, et al.
Thomas S. LeatherburyVinson & Elkins LLP, Petitioner
Thomas S. LeatherburyVinson & Elkins LLP, Petitioner
Tony McDonald, et al.
Jeffrey Matthew HarrisConsovoy McCarthy PLLC, Respondent
Jeffrey Matthew HarrisConsovoy McCarthy PLLC, Respondent