September 1, 2026, Salt Lake City, UT – Parr Brown Gee & Loveless has secured a significant appellate victory for the firm’s client, the Utah State Bar, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirming judgment for the Bar in a First Amendment challenge to Utah’s integrated bar. The published opinion in Pomeroy v. Utah State Bar, issued August 31, 2026, preserves the Utah Supreme Court’s mandatory bar membership and licensing-fee structure and rejects an effort to challenge activities undertaken by the Utah State Bar to serve Utah’s legal profession, the judiciary, and the public.
The case was part of a coordinated, multi-state campaign challenging the existence of integrated bar associations, in an effort to alter basic principles of First Amendment law. The plaintiff, a licensed Utah attorney represented by the Goldwater Institute, argued that requiring her to join the Utah State Bar and pay annual licensing fees violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the Bar’s procedures did not adequately protect members’ licensing fees from being spent on activities unrelated to regulating the legal profession. She challenged the Bar’s activities including lobbying, information published in the Utah Bar Journal, and social media posts, and asked the court to declare the Utah State Bar’s licensing requirements unconstitutional and enjoin the enforcement of the Utah Supreme Court’s rules governing the Utah State Bar. The district court reviewed the Bar’s procedures and conduct and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, granting summary judgment to the Bar. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Tenth Circuit.
On appeal, the Utah State Bar argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Keller v. State Bar of California supplies the governing test for integrated bars, and that the Bar’s activities and refund procedures satisfy the Constitution. The Tenth Circuit agreed on every point. The Court declined to adopt the plaintiff’s proposed standard, holding that Lathrop, Keller, and the circuit’s own decision in Schell foreclose it. It further held that the Bar’s opt-out and refund procedures are constitutionally adequate, joining the Ninth Circuit and expressly parting ways with the Fifth Circuit on whether a state bar must adhere strictly to the procedures outlined in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. The Court affirmed in full.
Because the opinion is published, it is binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit and adds a considered voice to a live circuit split on the constitutionality of integrated bars — an issue that has drawn repeated attention at the Supreme Court.
The Parr Brown team representing the Utah State Bar was led by Dick Baldwin, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group, who briefed and argued the appeal, and included David C. Reymann. The litigation team throughout the case also included co-counsel Troy L. Booher and Caroline A. Olsen of Zimmerman Booher.
The ruling marks another significant appellate victory for Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and underscores the firm’s strength in constitutional litigation and high-stakes appeals. Businesses, institutions, or individuals facing complex appeals or seeking experienced appellate counsel may contact Dick Baldwin, Chair of Parr Brown’s Appellate Practice Group, at dbaldwin@parrbrown.com or 801-257-7967.
