LeClerc v. Webb
2005 WL 1798623, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15755, 419 F.3d 405 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that creates a classification based on nonimmigrant alien status, as distinct from permanent resident alien status, is subject to rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. Such a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, citizens of France, Canada, and the United Kingdom, were lawfully present in the United States on various nonimmigrant visas, including student (F-1, J-1), temporary worker (H-1B), and spousal (L-2) visas.
- All plaintiffs held law degrees, some from foreign universities and one from an American university, and sought to become licensed attorneys in Louisiana.
- Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 3(B) required every applicant for admission to the state bar to be a citizen of the United States or a 'resident alien.'
- In the case of In re Bourke (2002), the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the term 'resident alien' in its bar admission rule to mean only those aliens who have attained permanent resident status (i.e., green card holders).
- This rule and its interpretation effectively barred the plaintiffs from being eligible to sit for the Louisiana bar exam because of their nonimmigrant status.
- Several plaintiffs applied for permission to sit for the bar exam or for an equivalency determination for their foreign law degrees and were denied specifically because their temporary, nonimmigrant status did not comply with the rule.
Procedural Posture:
- Two separate lawsuits, LeClerc v. Webb and Wallace v. Calogero, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging Louisiana's bar admission rule.
- In the LeClerc case, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the rule constitutional under rational basis review.
- The LeClerc plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- In the Wallace case, a different district court judge granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding the rule unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny standard.
- The defendants in the Wallace case, as appellants, appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeals from both cases for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state bar rule that prohibits nonimmigrant aliens from sitting for the bar examination, while permitting citizens and permanent resident aliens to do so, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Edith H. Jones
No, the Louisiana bar rule does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. State laws that differentiate based on nonimmigrant alien status are subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, and this rule is rationally related to legitimate state interests. The court's reasoning is that Supreme Court precedent applying strict scrutiny to alienage classifications has been limited to permanent resident aliens, who share many of the benefits and burdens of citizenship. Nonimmigrant aliens, by contrast, are admitted for temporary and specific purposes with no expectation of remaining permanently, making the distinction between the two groups 'paramount.' Therefore, rational basis review is the appropriate standard. The rule survives this review because Louisiana has a legitimate interest in ensuring the continuity and accountability of its licensed attorneys. The state could rationally conclude that the 'federally prescribed transience' of nonimmigrant aliens poses a unique risk that they may leave the country, placing them beyond the reach of the state bar's disciplinary authority and leaving clients without recourse. The rule is a rational means of addressing this 'particularly troublesome situation,' even if it is not perfectly tailored.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Judge Carl E. Stewart
Yes, the Louisiana bar rule violates the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argues that the majority errs by not applying strict scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has declared 'alienage' to be a suspect class, and nonimmigrant aliens are by definition part of that class. The rationale for this heightened protection—political powerlessness—applies to all lawfully present aliens, not just permanent residents. However, even if rational basis review were the correct standard, the rule would fail. The state's purported interests in preventing attorney transience and ensuring accountability are not rationally served by this classification because these concerns apply equally to citizens and permanent resident aliens, who are also free to leave the country. The rule is irrationally underinclusive and relies on a bare desire to harm a politically powerless group, as it fails to address the same potential problems posed by other groups it allows to practice law. There is no rational basis for believing nonimmigrant aliens pose a 'special threat' that others do not.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in equal protection jurisprudence by treating nonimmigrant aliens differently from permanent resident aliens, thereby creating a tiered system of constitutional protection for lawfully present non-citizens. By applying rational basis review instead of strict scrutiny, the court grants states significant deference to enact laws that disadvantage nonimmigrants in professional licensing and other areas. The ruling narrows the scope of the Supreme Court's holdings in cases like Graham and Griffiths, confining their strict scrutiny protection to permanent residents. Consequently, this precedent makes it substantially more difficult for individuals on temporary work or student visas to challenge state-level classifications that limit their economic opportunities.
