ILNews

SCOTUS won't take Indiana bar exam case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a federal suit against the state’s Board of Law Examiners filed by a man who wants to take the bar exam without going to law school.

An order list released this morning includes cases that the Supreme Court considered at its conference on Friday, and nine cases from Indiana are included.

The court declined to take Clarence Carter v. Chief Justice and Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court, et al., No. 11-5684, which comes from the Southern District of Indiana. U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt earlier this year dismissed the lawsuit, which claimed that the state justices and BLE violated Clarence Carter’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection to sit for the bar exam in Indiana. Administrative Rule 13 requires that person attend law school to sit for the bar exam, and Carter alleged that requirement arbitrarily excluded him from the chance to qualify to practice in this state.

The SCOTUS also denied: Anthony E. Moore v. U.S., No. 11-6244; Ty Brock v. U.S., No. 11-6308; Patrick Thelen v. William A. Sherrod, No. 11-6334; Anthony L. Fletcher v. U.S., No. 10-10562; Richard Wallace v. United States, No. 11-251; Antonio Kendrick v. Marcus Hardy, No. 11-5621; and Roger Yeadon, Jr. v. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-6024.

The justices are expected to consider at least three more Indiana cases.
 

Marcus Hardy v. Irving Cross, No. 11-74, has not been denied by SCOTUS, as the story originally stated. This story has been corrected.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • error in article
    I am counsel for Marcus Hardy in Hardy v. Cross, No. 11-74. This article states that the cert. petition was denied, but the matter has actually been "re-listed" twice -- set for 2 additional conferences -- and has not been denied yet. We are hopeful that the Court is considering a summary reversal.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT