ILNews

Lawsuit to take bar exam goes to 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The man who believes he should be able to sit for the bar exam even though he didn’t go to law school has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Clarence K. Carter sued the Indiana Supreme Court and state Board of Law Examiners because he wants to take the bar exam despite not having attended law school. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed Carter v. Chief Justice, et al., No. 1:10-CV-328, earlier this year for failure to state a claim that warrants relief.

Carter argues the Indiana Supreme Court justices and the BLE violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection to sit for the bar exam. Carter applied to law schools, but was not accepted. Admission Rule 13 provides the educational requirements to sit for the exam, which he believes unconstitutionally prejudges him as being unfit to practice law in Indiana and doesn’t allow him to prove his fitness. He also argues the educational requirements have no bearing on his fitness and ability to practice law.

Carter had his first suit dismissed in March 2010 by Chief Judge Richard Young for not paying the filing fee. He then filed a nearly identical suit shortly after the first dismissal. Carter filed his appeal to the 7th Circuit at the end of March 2011. The docket for the case notes the original record on appeal was filed electronically April 20.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Fair and balanced?
    I am wondering why this appeal to the Seventh Circuit is covered by this paper while mine is not? The subject matter is similar, both alleging unconstitutional bad admission actions on the part of the Indiana judiciary. www.archangelinstitute.org

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT