National Ass'n for Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. Castille
799 F.3d 216
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 204 permits experienced lawyers admitted in a "reciprocal state" to be admitted in Pennsylvania by motion without taking the Pennsylvania bar exam, subject to character review, MPRE score, continued good standing, and other conditions.
- Thirty-eight states plus D.C. are reciprocal with Pennsylvania; nonreciprocal-state attorneys must take the Pennsylvania bar exam (or seek pro hac vice admission) to practice.
- Plaintiffs: Richard Rosario (Maryland & D.C. bars), Paul Riviere (New Jersey bar), and NAAMJP challenged Rule 204 after Rosario and Riviere were unable or unwilling to obtain admission by motion because their admitting states are nonreciprocal.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities), the First Amendment (speech, association, petition), the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices (rulemakers); the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourteenth Amendment — Equal Protection / Privileges or Immunities | Rule 204 discriminates against attorneys from nonreciprocal states and burdens migration/rights, so it fails strict or rational-basis review | Rule 204 classifies by bar membership (not residency), does not block migration, and furthers legitimate state interests (reciprocity, competent bar) | Rational-basis review applies; Rule 204 survives as serving legitimate state interests (affirmed) |
| First Amendment — Free Speech | Rule 204 restricts professional speech / discriminates among speakers and viewpoints; may require heightened scrutiny | Rule 204 is a content-neutral licensing requirement regulating entry into the profession, tied to fitness to practice | Not a speech/content restriction; analyzed as licensing requirement with rational relation to fitness; does not violate First Amendment (affirmed) |
| First Amendment — Association & Petition | Rule 204 penalizes associational membership (bars of nonreciprocal states) and inhibits petitioning on others' behalf | Any burden is indirect/attenuated; attorneys can still practice via exam or pro hac vice; Petition Clause does not guarantee right to represent without qualification | No significant burden on expressive association or petition rights; claims fail (affirmed) |
| Article IV Privileges & Immunities | Denies fundamental right to practice to nonresidents | Rule distinguishes by bar membership, not residence, so it does not discriminate against nonresidents | Clause bars discrimination against out‑of‑staters; Rule 204 does not discriminate by residency and thus survives (affirmed) |
| Dormant Commerce Clause | Rule 204 unduly burdens interstate commerce by disadvantaging out‑of‑state attorneys | The rule is nondiscriminatory as to residency, has only incidental effects; alternatives (exam, pro hac vice) mitigate burden; it may promote commerce by easing admission for many states | No facial or purposeful discrimination; incidental burdens are not clearly excessive; Rule 204 does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schumacher v. Nix, 965 F.2d 1262 (3d Cir. 1992) (upheld a Pennsylvania reciprocity‑based bar rule under rational‑basis review)
- King v. Governor of N.J., 767 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2014) (professional‑speech framework and scrutiny for speech regulating professional conduct)
- Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Berch, 773 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) (upheld an Arizona reciprocity rule similar to Pennsylvania’s)
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of N.M., 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (states may require qualifications related to fitness to practice)
- Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945) (discussion of state regulation and speech)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content neutrality and speaker‑based distinctions in First Amendment analysis)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (speaker‑based restrictions often serve as means to control content)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (Pike balancing test for nondiscriminatory regulations with incidental effects on interstate commerce)