Whether the State Supreme Court and State Bar's denial of admission based on age violated Petitioner's rights to due process, equal protection, and his privileges and immunities under the U.S. Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Supreme Court of California (“State Supreme Court”) and their “administrative arm,” the State Bar of California (“State Bar”), effectively eliminate employment opportunities for prospective attorneys based on their ages. Petitioner, an individual of an age in excess of 50, who unsuccessfully participated in two State Bar attorney examinations, sought and received State Bar records reflecting that each of the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would in all likelihood be denied bar admission, as Petitioner was, based on their ages alone. Despite this Court’s ruling in Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 518 U.S. 30, 48 (1994), and this Court’s refusal to reverse Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, 989 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit recently held that the State Bar is entitled to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.! Petitioner sought review of his rejected State Bar Applications by directly petitioning the State Supreme Court, which the State Supreme Court summarily denied without a hearing or reasoning, leading to this Petition. The Questions presented are: (1) Whether the State Supreme Court and State Bar’s denial of admission based on age violated Petitioner’s rights to due process, equal protection, and his privileges and immunities under the U.S. Constitution; and, (2) Whether the State Bar is entitled to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 1 Kohn vy. State Bar of Cal, Ninth Circ. Case No. 2017316, 2023 WL 8441781 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Direct Proceedings Below Matthew Flinders v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court of California, Petition No. S281936 (petition denied on October 25, 2023).