826 F.3d 191
4th Cir.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • The District Court for the District of Maryland adopted Local Rule 701 governing general admission to its bar; Rule 701 admits Maryland-licensed attorneys, admits non-Maryland attorneys only if their principal office is in the state of licensure and that state’s federal district admits Maryland attorneys (reciprocity), and bars admission of any attorney who maintains a law office in Maryland.
  • NAAMJP (an organization) and four attorneys challenged Rule 701 as unconstitutional and preempted, suing the U.S. Attorney General and the District Court judges; the district court dismissed the complaint and denied NAAMJP summary judgment.
  • Plaintiffs asserted violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2072), and the Supremacy Clause; they raised related claims (free association, petition, speaker discrimination) but did not press Due Process on appeal.
  • The District defended Rule 701 as a generally applicable licensing rule that (1) encourages Maryland bar membership and liberal reciprocity in other districts and (2) ensures local supervision via the principal-office requirement.
  • The Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and assessed each constitutional and statutory challenge in turn.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
First Amendment: Does Rule 701 impermissibly regulate speech? Rule 701 restricts attorneys’ speech and assembly by conditioning bar access. Rule 701 is a professional-licensing rule regulating practice, not public speech, so First Amendment scrutiny does not apply. Held: Rule 701 is a generally applicable licensing provision regulating professional conduct; no First Amendment violation.
Equal Protection: Does Rule 701 violate equal protection? The Rule is discriminatory/monopolistic toward non-Maryland attorneys and limits access without sufficient justification. The Rule does not target a suspect class or fundamental right; it is rationally related to plausible objectives (local supervision, encouraging state bar membership). Held: Rational basis review applies; the Rule survives because district rationales are plausible.
Rules Enabling Act: Does Rule 701 conflict with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2072 or Rule 83? Section 2071 incorporates § 2072’s restriction on rules that abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights, so Rule 701 is invalid. § 2071 permits district courts to prescribe rules for their business so long as they do not conflict with Supreme Court procedure rules; § 2072’s non-substantive-right language governs only rules promulgated under § 2072. Held: Rule 701 is a permissible local rule for court business and does not violate the Rules Enabling Act or Rule 83.
Supremacy Clause / Preemption: Does Rule 701 improperly incorporate or rely on Maryland law so as to conflict with federal law? Incorporation of Maryland licensure standards effectively imports state law to control federal admission, potentially conflicting with federal supremacy. Federal courts may incorporate state standards; a federal rule adopting state criteria remains federal and is not preempted. Held: No Supremacy Clause violation; Rule 701 is a federal rule that may use state licensing standards without becoming state law.

Key Cases Cited

  • Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (1957) (membership in bar is a privilege subject to conditions)
  • Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, 708 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2013) (professional speech doctrine and licensing regulation of professionals)
  • Lowe v. S.E.C., 472 U.S. 181 (1985) (distinguishing regulation of professions from regulation of public speech)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausibility)
  • FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis review presumption of validity)
  • Goldfarb v. Supreme Court of Va., 766 F.2d 859 (4th Cir. 1985) (upholding state bar regulation rationales)
  • Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Castille, 799 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2015) (upholding similar admission restrictions)
  • Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Berch, 773 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) (same)
  • Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (federal rules may incorporate state standards)
  • Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) (federal law prevails over conflicting state law)
Read the full case