RECENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT PROVES THE CHALLENGED NONUNIFORM LOCAL RULES THAT DENY GENERAL ADMISSION PRIVILEGES TO LAWYERS LICENSED IN 49 STATES ARE UNLAWFUL
The facts and Supreme Court precedent have changed to the point that it is now crystal clear that U.S. District Court local Rules that deny general admission privileges to lawyers licensed in 49 states are antiquated and far exceed local Rule making discretion. Notwithstanding COVID19 and the accompanying PACER technological advance that distinctions between the internet and real-space operations are increasingly fictional, one of more than six recent Supreme Court decisions squarely proves this judgment.
SIEGEL v. FITZGERALD, No. 21–44, was decided June 6, 2022. The Bankruptcy Clause empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4. The question in SIEGEL is whether Congress’ enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two states violated the uniformity requirement. The unanimous High Court held it did. Although the Bankruptcy Clause confers broad authority on Congress, the Clause also imposes a limitation on that authority: the requirement that the laws enacted be “uniform.” The Court held “Congress [does not have] free rein to subject similarly situated debtors in different States to different fees because it chooses to pay the costs for some, but not others.” (Emphasis added). Slip Op. 11. “The Court holds only that the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause prohibits Congress from arbitrarily burdening only one set of debtors with a more onerous funding mechanism than that which applies to debtors in other States.” Slip Op. 14.
If Congress cannot subject similarly situated parties in different states to different taxes, duties, and imposts in the federal court, judges by local Rules cannot subject similarly situated parties in different states to different taxes, duties, and imposts. The Supreme Court squarely holds similarly situated petitioners in the United States Courthouse cannot be subject to more onerous access mechanisms than others. The nonuniform local Rules proscribe what the Supreme Court has prohibited.
In addition to SIEGEL, LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION argue the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts.” FRCP 1. The purpose is to provide uniform rules. The scope applies to all federal civil actions and proceedings. The purpose is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. (Emphasis added) Ibid. The challenged local Rules are not uniform and they do not “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action:” (i) when all lawyers in one-third of the District Courts including the Western District of Pennsylvania can obtain general admission privileges by filing a certificate of good standing and paying a District Court admission fee of $200; (ii) other lawyers admitted in tit-for-tat states, such as New Jersey, can obtain federal admission by reciprocity or UBE transfer and paying a $1,500 admission on motion tax and duty to New Jersey, and a District of New Jersey admission fee of $200; (iii) and lawyers in Delaware can obtain general admission privileges by filing a certificate of good standing, paying a Delaware District Court admission fee of $200, paying an $800 tax and duty to reinvent the wheel to the State of Delaware and pass its entry-level competence licensing test, and then completing a clerkship requirement that consists of a 5-month clerkship period aggregating 21 full-time (40 hours) work weeks, which clerkship must be completed in Delaware, under the supervision of a Delaware attorney.
LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION have presented dozens of similar arguments in two pending cases that illustrate beyond any doubt the public is not being protected by denying lawyers and their clients equal citizenship rights in the United States Courthouse.