Question From New Member

smulroy at memphis.edu smulroy at memphis.edu
Wed Nov 9 13:22:27 PST 2005


I'm a new subscriber who just started teaching Con Law.  I was curious
as to the thoughts you all might have re: this scenario.  
 
A private group  putting together a CLE program seeks state CLE
certification from a "mandatory" state bar, funded by the state, which
reports to the state supreme court.  The CLE will exclude members based
on religion, and require participants to sign an affirmation of faith in
a particular religious denomination.  The CLE content is otherwise
"CLE-worthy."  Generally, CLEs in the state have been open to any member
of the bar, with some rare exceptions involving situations where
criminal defense-oriented CLEs have excluded prosecutors, or
environmental defense CLEs have excluded Sierra Club lawyers.    Do you
think the proper result is 
(A) the state may not so certify without violating the Equal
Protection/Establishment/Free Exercise Clause
(B) the state must certify, else it violates the Free Exercise or Free
Speech Clause
(C) the state has the option of certifying or not in the exercise of its
policy discretion
(D) something else entirely? 
 
Asst. Prof. Steven J. Mulroy
Univ. of Memphis Law School
207 Humphreys
Univ. of Memphis/Memphis, TN 38152
Ofc: 901-678-4494
Fax: 901-678-5210
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051109/68475b6e/attachment.htm


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list