Whether admission to a State Bar constitutes a liberty interest

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented are: 1. Whether admission to a State Bar, or other state licensing agency, constitutes a liberty interest under the United States Constitution. 2. Whether a strict scrutiny standard of review . is required when a liberty interest is at stake and whether the applicant or the state bears the burden of proof. 3. Whether admission or licensing standards, and any disqualifying factors, must be narrow, objective, and definite. ; 4. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment allows a State Bar, or other state licensing agency, to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DED resulting in racial and gender preferences in the admission process Petitioner Dale Laue (hereinafter “Mr. Laue”) respectfully requests this Court to review important questions of law related to applicants seeking admission to practice law in California. Without a bright line precedent on these questions, state licensing agencies can grant or deny a professional license for whatever racial, gender, or ideological reasons they choose with impunity. This leaves applicants with little or no legal recourse and courts with little or no guidance on these issues. These questions affect similarly situated ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW— Continued applicants and are subject to repetition. The actual number of applicants is unknown because the admission process is confidential. Mr. Laue argues that his adverse moral character determination by the State Bar of California Commit/ ‘ tee of Bar Examiners (hereinafter “the Committee”) consists of vague, arbitrary and subjective reasons instead of narrow, objective, and definite standards supported by admissible evidence of any disqualifying factors. Mr. Laue has no criminal history and has not violated the rights of any person. Mr. Laue further argues that his adverse moral character determination is based on racial and gender preferences, a policy prohibited by Article I, section 31 of the California Constitution. Despite constitutional prohibitions, the State Bar ; of California openly promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals pursuant to the newly enacted California Business and Professions Code section 6001.3. Their stated mission is to achieve a statewide attorney population that reflects the rich demographics of the state’s population. This quota policy, and the statute, likely also violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a published opinion, the State Bar Court of California ruled that Mr. Laue failed to establish his iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW— Continued burden of requisite good moral character for admission to practice law in California. Mr. Laue asserts that the State Bar Court failed to apply the strict scrutiny standard of review when the matter involves a liberty interest under the United States Constitution. Consequently, the State Bar Court’s Opinion is not supported . by the law, the facts, or the weight of the evidence in the record. Lastly, he argues that the Committee should bear the burden of identifying any disqualifying factors and not Mr. Laue to prove his own good moral character, a de facto “guilty until proven innocent” requirement.