What’s wrong with this picture?
Plenty! The federal scales of justice are rusted and out of balance by antiquated “local” attorney admission rules in this 21st Century. These local rules emasculate the aim of our Founding Father’s to form a more perfect union and establish justice.

1. Bill of Rights Violation. Our federal government has broken its promise made in the Bill of Rights to make no law that abridges the People’s freedom to advocate, assemble, and petition the federal court for redress of their grievances. As stated by Justice Jackson, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Board of Education v. Barnette, [flag salute case] 319 U.S 624, 638 (1943). “But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” Ibid. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Ibid.

2. Constitutional Preamble Violation. The Preamble to our Constitution states its overall purpose to form a more perfect Union and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Balkanized “local” attorney only admission rules systematically corrupt a perfect Union, and abort the blessings of liberty. If Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton are barred from the very Article III courts they fought for and created, as they would be if they were alive today, it is plain the Constitutional promises made in Philadelphia have been betrayed. The categorical exclusion by “local” rule for the opportunity for general admission of experienced non-forum state attorney, regardless of individual merit or qualifications, parallels the categorical exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute regardless of individual merit that was held unconstitutional. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). There is a deprivation of full citizenship stature and equal opportunity to participate in and contribute to society.

3. Viewpoint Discrimination. These challenged “local” attorney only admission rules are quintessential viewpoint discrimination. Only “local” attorneys are permitted to state their views or petition for redress of grievances. A regulation that denies one group of citizens the right to address a selected audience on controversial issues of public policy is plainly viewpoint discrimination. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comn’n, 447 U.S. 530, 546. Viewpoint discrimination is a particularly egregious form of content discrimination. It is presumptively unconstitutional. Our government is prohibited from favoring one viewpoint over another. See Rosenberger v. Rector And Visitors of Univ. of VA, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)(Holding that although it may regulate the content of expression when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message, the University may not discriminate based on the viewpoint of private persons whose speech it subsidizes even when the subject is religion). "To permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views . . . is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." Madison Joint School Dist. No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167, 175-176 (1976).

4. Equal Rights Violation. An essential purpose of our Constitution is to provide equal privileges and immunities, and uniform constitutional rights throughout our Union via the Article III courts. This goal has been subverted and turned upside down. To state the facts is to show the equal protection violation. Congress has declared that all American attorneys in good standing are permitted to practice before federal administrative agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 500. The same holds true for the United States Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See FRAP 46, Supreme Court Rule 5. About 1/3 of the federal district courts authorize general bar admission to all American attorneys in good standing. It is only some federal district courts that deny general admission to all American attorneys, and that is by “local” rule. Local rules that favor local interests in the exercise of Constitutional rights are antithetical to our Constitution. This “local” only policy, further flies in the face of the ABA MJP Report Client Representation in the 21st Century, and it contradicts the approximately 40 states that now grant general admission on motion to experienced attorneys.

5. Right to Travel. No Taxation Without Representation Violation. Our government was founded on the “fighting faith” of “no taxation without representation.” Every day of the week some United States District Court’s by “local”(sic) rules are denying American citizens their liberty to be represented by their counsel of choice in the federal courthouses that they pay for with their federal tax dollars by compelling them to retain local counsel to exercise their constitutional rights. Additionally, a statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech. Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, (1991). Stated differently, the First Amendment freedoms are designed to be free.

6. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Violation. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to….have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” This bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. This Clause has been extended to require the government to pay for the assistance of defense counsel for those who cannot afford counsel. In Crawford v. Washington 02-9410 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court recently held the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause was a categorical constitutional guarantee that was not subject to judicial open-ended balancing tests of trustworthiness. The Court held, “By replacing categorical constitutional guarantees with open-ended balancing tests, we do violence to their (Framers) design.”
Likewise, the 6th Amendment right to Assistance of Counsel is a constitutional categorical guarantee that is not subject to judicial open-ended balancing tests of trustworthiness. The choice of counsel is obviously a fundamental right of fundamental importance. Under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), it was held a criminal defendant has an independent constitutional right to represent himself as long as he elects to do so voluntarily and intentionally, and the state cannot force him to rely upon counsel the accused does not want. It follows from the holdings of Faretta and Crawford, that an accused has a 6th Amendment right to Assistance of Counsel from an out-of-state licensed counsel as long as the accused is paying for it and his choice of counsel is voluntary and intentional.

7. Due Process Violation. As mentioned in the Federalist Papers “no man can be a judge in his own case.” The Due Process Clause compels federal district judges to remain neutral and to even avoid the appearance of impropriety or favoritism. Here, federal district judges who adopt forum State only “local” attorney admission rules and do not give full faith and credit to another State’s attorney admission rules are either not neutral or they appear to be not neutral by doling out unequal privileges and liberties. Additionally, these “local” rules are a prior restraint or injunction that suppresses First Amendment rights. When a court decides to impose a speech-restrictive injunction, the conclusions it reaches must be "supported by findings that adequately disclose the[ir] evidentiary basis . . ., that carefully identify the impact of [the defendants'] unlawful conduct, and that recognize the importance of avoiding the imposition of punishment for constitutionally protected activity." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 933-34 (1982). There is neither an evidentiary basis nor a judicial finding of unlawful conduct against non-forum state attorneys that would serve to justify the suppression of their First Amendment liberties via a prior restraint.

8. Supremacy Clause. Delegation of Federal Subject Matter and Jurisdiction Running Riot. Federal and State subject matter and jurisdiction are often diametrically opposed. States freely acknowledge they have no right to prescribe the qualifications or determine who the federal court admits to its bar. These “local” rules do not delegate any standard. A federal court that delegates its federal authority to a State without express standards implementing that delegation is delegation running riot. Last term, the United States Supreme in Nguyen v. United States 01-10873 (2003) reversed the Ninth Circuit merely for having an Article IV judge sitting on a panel. The High Court concluded that only Article III judges were authorized to decide the case.

9. Violation of Rule-Making Authority. Congress has by statute 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-72 expressly prescribed that “local” district court rules shall not abridge, modify, or enlarge any substantive rights. Additionally, Congress in 1988, in view of the historical balkanization of "local" federal district court rules, and the express finding that there is really no meaningful opportunity for judicial review or due process, because the judges who make the rules decide whether the “local” rules are unlawful, has by statute expressly delegated to the Judicial Councils of the Courts of Appeal an ongoing supervisory responsibility to review and to make certain that “local” rules shall not abridge, modify, or enlarge and any substantive rights. 28 U.S.C. §§ 331-32. The challenged “local” federal district court admission rules clearly modify, abridge and enlarge the First Amendment freedoms to speech, association, and petition for redress of grievances. These exclusionary “local’ rules also clearly abridge, modify, and enlarge the federal statutory right to counsel 28 U.S.C § 1651 because this federal discrimination occurs only in some federal district courts.

10. We have a constitutional duty to protect our own freedoms so that we can serve our clients as well as the interests of justice. We have failed to maintain vigilance, and protect our rights. The federal judiciary which has a constitutional duty to provide a bulwark for the People against the loss of their freedoms is not and has not performed its responsibility. The fault lies not with our government, but with ourselves for falling asleep and failing to demand the enforcement of our freedoms. If the federal government does not live up to its responsibility, the consequence is many states will not either, and the People lose respect for their government as well as the world we live in.