UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL Z. CROWE; LAWRENCE K. No. 19-35463 PETERSON I; OREGON CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEYS, an Oregon D.C. No. nonprofit corporation, 3:18-cv-02139- Plaintiffs-Appellants, JR

v. OREGON STATE BAR, a Public Corporation; OREGON STATE BAR BOARD OF GOVERNORS; VANESSA A. NORDYKE, President of the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors; CHRISTINE CONSTANTINO, President- elect of the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors; HELEN MARIE HIERSCHBIEL, Chief Executive Officer of the Oregon State Bar; KEITH PALEVSKY, Director of Finance and Operations of the Oregon State Bar; AMBER HOLLISTER, General Counsel for the Oregon State Bar, Defendants-Appellees. 2 CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR

DIANE L. GRUBER; MARK RUNNELS, No. 19-35470 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 3:18-cv-01591- JR OREGON STATE BAR; CHRISTINE CONSTANTINO; HELEN MARIE HIERSCHBIEL, OPINION Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2020 Portland, Oregon

Filed February 26, 2021

Before: Jay S. Bybee and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges, and Kathleen Cardone,* District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge VanDyke

* The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR 3

SUMMARY**

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, and remanded, in actions alleging First Amendment violations arising from the Oregon State Bar’s requirement that lawyers must join and pay annual membership fees in order to practice in Oregon.

At the heart of plaintiffs’ suits were two statements published alongside each other in the April 2018 edition of the Oregon State Bar’s (“OSB”) monthly Bulletin. The first, attributed to OSB and signed by its leaders, condemned white nationalism and the “normalization of violence.” The second was a joint statement of the Oregon Specialty Bar Associations supporting OSB’s statement. OSB maintained that both Bulletin statements were germane to its role of improving the quality of legal services. When plaintiffs and other members complained about the statements, OSB refunded $1.15 to plaintiffs and other objectors—the portion of their membership fees used to publish the April 2018 Bulletin.

In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the free speech claim, the panel held that it need not decide whether the district court erred in concluding that the Bulletin statements were germane under Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1990) (or, in the case of the Specialty Bars’ statement, not attributable to OSB) for

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR purposes of this appeal. Even assuming both statements were nongermane, plaintiffs’ free speech claim failed. Plaintiffs had argued that because Keller relied on Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 234–36 (1977), to treat compulsory dues like union dues, and because Abood was overruled by Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2477, 2481 (2018), the c