Boudreaux v. LA State Bar Assn
3f4th748
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Louisiana requires membership in the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) to practice law; members pay mandatory annual dues (currently $80–$200) and face discipline for nonpayment.
- LSBA performs regulatory tasks (CLE, ethics, grievance/mediation, member assistance) and also engages in legislative advocacy through a Legislation Committee; bylaws allow limited refund or arbitration on member objections to specific legislative positions.
- Randy Boudreaux sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, claiming mandatory membership, mandatory dues funding political/ideological speech, and inadequate procedural safeguards violated his First Amendment rights (free association and free speech).
- The district court dismissed: (1) the membership claim as foreclosed by Lathrop/Keller, (2) the dues-use claim for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (treating dues as a tax), and (3) the procedural- safeguards claim for lack of standing because Boudreaux did not identify specific impermissible expenditures.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded: it found Boudreaux plausibly alleged non-germane political activity (so the Keller open-question association claim was presented), held the dues are fees (not taxes) so the Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal review, and ruled Boudreaux has standing to challenge LSBA’s notice procedures; the court also held Hudson procedures are the constitutional minimum for mandatory bar dues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does mandatory bar membership violate freedom of association when the bar engages in political/ideological activity? | Boudreaux: compulsory membership coerces association because LSBA engages in non-germane political advocacy. | LSBA: Lathrop/Keller foreclose this claim; no concrete associational injury alleged. | Court: Plaintiff plausibly pleaded the Keller "open" associational claim and has standing; dismissal was erroneous. |
| 2) May federal court hear challenge to use of mandatory dues for non‑germane speech, or does Tax Injunction Act bar suit (dues = tax)? | Boudreaux: dues function as regulatory fees imposed by the bar, not state taxes, so TIA does not bar federal jurisdiction. | Defendants: dues are effectively a state-imposed license tax; TIA prohibits federal injunctions. | Court: Dues are fees (imposed by LSBA, limited to regulated attorneys, used to defray regulatory costs); TIA does not bar the claim. |
| 3) Must a bar provide Hudson notice procedures to collect mandatory dues? | Boudreaux: Keller requires safeguards; LSBA’s notice is inadequate and prevents members from identifying non‑germane expenditures. | LSBA: Keller doesn’t mandate full Hudson procedures; Crowe supports less-than-Hudson safeguards. | Court: Hudson procedures are the constitutional minimum; state bars must provide them. |
| 4) Can plaintiff challenge LSBA’s procedural safeguards without identifying a specific non‑germane expenditure? | Boudreaux: inability to identify expenditures (due to deficient notice) is the concrete injury; that suffices for standing. | LSBA: plaintiff must identify particular impermissible expenditures to have standing. | Court: Plaintiff has standing—deficient notice itself is a cognizable injury; dismissal for lack of standing was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961) (plurality: upheld mandatory bar membership re: compelled financial support tied to regulation)
- Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990) (bar may not spend mandatory dues on activities not germane to regulating the profession; procedural safeguards required)
- Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (union-fee procedures: notice, opportunity to challenge before impartial decisionmaker, escrow)
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (overruled Abood; public employees must opt in; expressed skepticism about Hudson notice sufficiency)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) (objectors must identify contested expenditures with appropriate specificity at stages of litigation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury-in-fact)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (historically allowed agency fees for germane union activities; later overruled by Janus)