No. 19-831October Term 2019Decided Jun 1, 2020
Jarchow v. State Bar of Wis.
At this stage, the case is a challenge to mandatory state bar membership and funding, with the petition asking the justices to reconsider earlier precedents.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Jun 1, 2020
- What it's about
This case asks whether Wisconsin can require lawyers to join and financially support the state bar as a condition of practicing law. The petition argues that forcing attorneys to subsidize the bar’s speech and advocacy violates the First Amendment and that the Supreme Court should overrule its earlier decisions allowing mandatory integrated bars.
Question presented
Whether Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), upholding the constitutionality of integrated bars like Wisconsin’s, remain good law.
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit / Decision released Jun 1, 2020
- Area
First Amendment
Briefing
What it's about
This case asks whether Wisconsin may require lawyers to join and financially support the state bar as a condition of practicing law. The petition says that forcing attorneys to fund the bar's speech and advocacy violates the First Amendment.
Vote
The case is still pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. The petition argues that Lathrop and Keller should be overruled, but no Supreme Court decision is available yet.
Impact
If the Court revisits its older cases, lawyers in states with mandatory bars could face different rules about bar membership and dues. For example, a Wisconsin attorney now pays bar-related costs to keep practicing and could be directly affected by any change.
What's next
Watch for oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.
What is Jarchow asking the Supreme Court to reconsider?
He wants the Court to revisit Lathrop and Keller. Those cases let states require lawyers to join and fund integrated bars.
Who could feel the impact if the Court changes the rules in this case?
Lawyers in states with mandatory bars could be affected. For example, a Wisconsin lawyer might no longer have to pay bar dues to practice.
What should court watchers look for next in Jarchow v. State Bar of Wis.?
Watch for the Court to schedule oral argument or take another docket step. The prompt gives no decision window yet.
Decision
What the Court decided
At this stage, the case is a challenge to mandatory state bar membership and funding, with the petition asking the justices to reconsider earlier precedents.
Impact
If the Court revisits its older cases, lawyers in states with mandatory bars could face different rules about bar membership and dues. For example, a Wisconsin attorney now pays bar-related costs to keep practicing and could be directly affected by any change.
Not official Court text.
Opinion documents
Timing
Decided June 1, 2020
The Court released its decision on June 1, 2020 without hearing oral argument.
Documents
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology