Supreme Court of NH v. Piper

1985-03-04

Headline: Court strikes down New Hampshire rule barring nonresident lawyers from joining the state bar, allowing nearby out-of-state applicants to practice and forcing states to justify residency limits.

Holding: The Court held that New Hampshire’s rule excluding nonresidents from bar admission violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because the State failed to show substantial reasons and a close fit to its objectives.

Real World Impact:

Allows nearby out-of-state applicants to seek full bar admission.
Requires states to show substantial reasons for residency-only rules.
Encourages less-restrictive alternatives like seminars or local counsel requirements.

Topics: lawyer licensing, bar admission rules, interstate practice, state residency requirements

Summary

Background

Kathryn Piper lives in Vermont about 400 yards from the New Hampshire border. She passed the New Hampshire bar exam but was denied admission under a rule requiring applicants to be residents or to intend to reside in the State. After the New Hampshire Supreme Court refused an exception, Piper sued in federal court alleging the rule violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The District Court ruled for Piper, the First Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court now affirms that judgment.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the opportunity to practice law is a privilege protected by the Clause and, if so, whether New Hampshire had substantial reasons for treating nonresidents differently and whether the rule closely served those goals. The Court held that practicing law is a protected privilege because it affects the national economy and the vindication of federal rights. It rejected the State’s justifications — unfamiliarity with local rules, ethics concerns, unavailability for sudden hearings, and lower pro bono participation — as not sufficiently substantial and not closely related to the residency rule. The majority pointed to less restrictive alternatives, such as discipline, seminars, or requiring distant lawyers to associate local counsel.

Real world impact

The decision allows qualified nonresidents, especially nearby commuters, to seek state bar admission absent substantial state justifications. States with residency requirements must show concrete, closely related reasons for excluding nonresidents. The Court did not decide other constitutional claims raised below, so those issues remain unopened.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White concurred only as applied to Piper and would avoid deciding the rule’s facial validity. Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing states have substantial interests in resident lawyers for local governance, availability, and limiting delay.