Oliver v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 312 F. Supp. 3d 515

Oliver, a law graduate with documented ADHD/learning and depressive disorders, requested testing accommodations (extra time, reader, separate room) for the 2016 Virginia Bar Exam; the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners (VBBE) denied the request and denied reconsideration.
Oliver took the Virginia exam without accommodations, failed by three points, later passed the Michigan bar with accommodations, and sued VBBE and its secretary seeking injunctive, declaratory relief and $100,000 in damages under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court heard argument and considered jurisdictional evidence about funding.
The court found Oliver failed to plead any personal-capacity claims against the individual defendant and that Ex parte Young did not save those claims.
The court concluded federal jurisdiction was barred by Rooker–Feldman because the Board’s accommodations decision was a judicial act and Oliver had an available state-court avenue of review he did not pursue.
Alternatively, the court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds (no valid abrogation or waiver) and dismissed the equal protection claim for failure to plead disparate treatment or discriminatory intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman	Board’s denial was administrative, so federal court may review constitutional/ADA claims	Board is an arm of the state performing a judicial function; Oliver could have sought state-court review	Rooker–Feldman bars federal review; Board’s decision was judicial and Oliver forfeited state-court review by not appealing
ADA (Title II/III) applicability	Title II/III require accommodations for examinations; Board violated ADA	Title III applies only to private entities; Title II cannot validly abrogate Virginia’s sovereign immunity in professional licensing context	Title III claim dismissed; Title II claim barred by Eleventh Amendment because Congress did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity for state professional licensing here
Rehabilitation Act (§504)	RA applies to the Board	Board argued it does not accept federal funds and thus has not waived immunity	Court found Board does not accept federal funds; RA claim barred by sovereign immunity
Equal Protection Clause	Board’s denial discriminated against Oliver and similarly situated disabled examinees	Oliver failed to identify comparators or intentional discrimination; rational basis applies	Claim dismissed for failure to plead disparate treatment/intent and because denial is rationally related to legitimate state interest in licensing

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts may not review state court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (state bar admissions actions are judicial and federal courts lack jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. W. Va. State Bar, 233 F.3d 813 (4th Cir.) (state bar agencies can perform judicial acts invoking Rooker–Feldman)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Title II can validly abrogate sovereign immunity when enforcing fundamental rights related to courtroom access)
Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for certain ADA suits)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (§5 enforcement authority limited by congruence and proportionality)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to deference on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)