Also known as: seek admission · seeks admission · sought admission · bar admission · admission to practice
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A formal application to a state bar authority for licensure as an attorney, during which the applicant must disclose all material facts and respond truthfully to character-and-fitness inquiries.
A formal application to a state bar authority for licensure as an attorney, during which the applicant must disclose all material facts and respond truthfully to character-and-fitness inquiries.
Stella Shapiro filed for bankruptcy to discharge student loans shortly before submitting her bar application. The admissions committee reviewed the filing as part of its character inquiry. The committee determined that the bankruptcy reflected on her responsibility and fitness to practice.
Santiago Sanchez, a licensed attorney from another state, applied for admission in a state that required one year of residency. He challenged the rule as violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court struck down the requirement because it lacked substantial justification beyond speculation about nonresidents.
The status of a non-citizen who is attempting to enter the United States lawfully after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. Non-citizens are deemed applicants for admission both when arriving at a port of entry and when present in the United States without prior lawful admission.
Simon Stern, an undocumented child, sought admission to public schools in a Texas district that denied enrollment based on immigration status. The district claimed the policy conserved resources. The Supreme Court held that the classification violated equal protection because illegal entry alone does not bar residency for school purposes.
The status of a non-citizen who is attempting to enter the United States lawfully after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. Non-citizens are deemed applicants for admission both when arriving at a port of entry and when present in the United States without prior lawful admission.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sasha Stone sought reciprocal admission in a neighboring state that imposed extra residency hurdles on nonresidents. She argued the barriers infringed her right to practice law. The court invalidated the requirements under the Privileges and Immunities Clause for lacking substantial justification.
3 common questions
An applicant must respond truthfully and completely to lawful demands for information from admissions authorities. Failure to respond to inquiries about prior investigations or discipline constitutes knowing noncooperation even without an affirmative lie.
Yes. A knowing false statement of material fact on a bar application about prior discipline in another profession violates the duty of candor and can serve as an independent basis for discipline after admission.
No. A lawyer who knows of prior discipline and submits a letter describing the applicant as having an unblemished record makes a knowing false statement of material fact in connection with the admission application.
Since the late 19th century the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry is a crime and those who enter unlawfully are subject to deportation, yet a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering and now live within various States including Texas. In May 1975 the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts for the education of children not legally admitted into the United States. The revision also authorized local districts to deny enrollment to such children under Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031. In September 1977 a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County who could not establish legal admission. The suit challenged their exclusion from the Tyler Independent School District schools, and the State of Texas intervened as a defendant. After certifying a class of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin in the district, the court held an extensive hearing in December 1977. It found that the statute had neither the purpose nor effect of keeping illegal aliens out of Texas, that enrollment increases stemmed primarily from legal residents, and that barring undocumented children would save money but would not necessarily improve education quality. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction. During 1978 and 1979 additional suits were filed in other Texas districts. The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation consolidated them in the Southern District of Texas. After a hearing the district court held the statute violated equal protection, the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases.
View caseSteven Silva, a non-citizen present without admission, faced state criminal penalties for failing to carry registration documents. Arizona argued the law supported federal enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the state provision was preempted because it interfered with the federal scheme governing admission and removal.
In 2010, the State of Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, commonly known as S. B. 1070. The statute's stated purpose is to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. Arizona officials described the law as establishing a policy of attrition through enforcement. S. B. 1070 contains four provisions that became the focus of litigation. Section 3 makes it a state misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of federal law. Section 5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona. Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make reasonable efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government. The United States filed suit against Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to enjoin enforcement of these provisions. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the four provisions from taking effect. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2011. Arizona experiences significant effects from unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in the State each year, and unauthorized aliens are estimated to comprise almost six percent of the population. In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, unauthorized aliens are reported to account for a disproportionate share of serious crime. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
View caseSeth Shapiro, a national from a designated country, applied for a visa and sought admission at a port of entry. The executive order suspended entry from certain countries on national security grounds. The Supreme Court upheld the order as within the President's authority over admission of non-citizens.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769 directing a review of information provided by foreign governments about their nationals seeking entry and temporarily restricting entry from seven countries previously identified as posing terrorism risks. After courts enjoined that order, the President revoked it and issued Executive Order 13780, which again directed a worldwide review and temporarily restricted entry from six of the countries. Following completion of the review, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645 on September 24, 2017, placing entry restrictions on nationals of eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—whose systems for managing and sharing information the President deemed inadequate. The Proclamation imposed varying restrictions by country, exempted lawful permanent residents and asylees, provided for case-by-case waivers, and directed ongoing 180-day reviews; restrictions on Chad were later lifted after it improved its practices. Plaintiffs including the State of Hawaii, three U.S. citizens with foreign-national relatives from Iran, Syria, and Yemen applying for visas, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii challenged the Proclamation in the District of Hawaii on statutory and Establishment Clause grounds. The district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on statutory grounds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case1 common questions
Non-citizens are deemed applicants for admission both when they arrive at a port of entry and when they are present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted after inspection and authorization.
…undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission. [23] Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful…