Whether Pennsylvania's ABA law school accreditation monopoly violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due Process protections

Shortly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when most American Bar Association (ABA) law schools had not yet admitted Black students or minorities, Pennsylvania created rules that prohibited all historically qualified applicants from obtaining standard admission to the bar unless they had graduated from an ABA-accredited law school. As in Dent and Douglas, professional licensing limitations throughout relevant ratification periods were always specific to an individual ’s “knowledge and skill ” and did not ever authorize bare rational basis deference. In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court restored fundamental core protections of Second Amendment rights by holding that restrictions inconsistent with America ’s historical tradition of regulation are unconstitutional. Since ABA ’s inception and persistent racial discrimination began in 1878, states have been divided on whether the fundamental right to earn a living could be legitimately restricted by an accreditation monopoly. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Pennsylvania ’s ABA monopoly within professional licensing qualifications exceeds the limits of Bruen ’s text, history, and traditions test in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Whether Pennsylvania ’s ABA monopoly survives strict scrutiny or invidiously discriminates against Blacks in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Whether procedural due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment are violated by Pennsylvania ’s failure to assess an individual ’s similar educational qualifications for licensing.