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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  2. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  3. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

  4. I would like to discuss a commercial litigation case. If you handle such cases, respond for more details.

  5. Great analysis, Elizabeth. Thank you for demonstrating that abortion leads, in logic and acceptance of practice, directly to infanticide. Women of the world unite, you have only your offspring to lose!

ADVERTISEMENT