Bashir v. Supreme Court of Ohio

Decision Date22 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-3807,80-3807
Citation652 F.2d 641
PartiesSa'ad BASHIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Jim Rimedio, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas V. Martin, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.

Before KEITH, BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Sa'ad Bashir appeals an adverse summary judgment dismissing his equal protection claim against the Supreme Court of Ohio. Bashir is a citizen of Pakistan, a graduate of Punjab University Law School, and a licensed attorney in Pakistan. Bashir immigrated to the United States, and now resides permanently in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bashir applied for admission to practice law in Ohio, and was scheduled to take the July 1979 bar examination. On July 23, 1979, Bashir asked for leave to withdraw from the examination in order to apply for admission to the Bar on motion without an examination. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Bashir's application for admission on motion with the option to sit for the bar exam because he is neither a member of any state Bar nor a citizen of the United States.

Because of In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973), the rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio do not require citizenship for an applicant to sit for the bar examination. We are assured that the application form will be corrected to reflect this rule. Citizenship continues, however, to be a requirement for admission by motion.

Bashir brought suit against the court, alleging that the citizenship requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Naturalization Powers of Article 1 § 8. He also claims that the citizenship requirement unlawfully impairs his ability to practice his profession and earn a living.

Without giving notice to the parties, the District Court, 501 F.Supp. 288 (1980), treated the court's 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment and dismissed Bashir's complaint on the ground that the court's Rule 1 § 8(A)(b) does not classify applicants on the basis of a suspect criterion. The District Court reasoned that Bashir would not be eligible for admission without examination even if he were a citizen, since the Rule requires that an applicant possess a certificate of admission to the highest court of another state or the District of Columbia. Bashir has not been admitted to any other state Bar. Therefore, the court reasoned, he received the same treatment as any other citizen, and was not denied equal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Salibra v. Supreme Court of Ohio
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 3, 1984
    ...792, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 2015, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975); Bashir v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 501 F.Supp. 288, 291 (S.D.Ohio 1980), aff'd, 652 F.2d 641 (6th Cir.1981). See In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 722-23, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 2855-56, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973); Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.......
  • Wilson v. Glenwood Intermountain Properties, Inc., 95-4056
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 21, 1996
    ...after he would have ranked high enough to be considered for promotion if strict rank order had been followed); Bashir v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 652 F.2d 641 (6th Cir.1981) (Pakistani attorney who sought admission to Ohio bar by motion lacked standing to challenge requirement of U.S. citizen......
  • Raymond v. O'Connor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 10, 2012
    ...are rationally related to a valid state objective. Bashir v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 501 F. Supp. 288, 291 (S.D. Ohio 1980) aff'd, 652 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1981) (citing Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1959)). The complaint does not plead any facts to suggest Defendants made a......
  • Voce v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1984
    ...to apply for a license precluded him from having the circuit court pass on the validity of Section 494.04(2). Bashir v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 652 F.2d 641 (6th Cir.1981). Cf. Caiola v. City of Birmingham, 288 Ala. 486, 262 So.2d 602, 607 (1972); Grosso v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 830, 13 S.E.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT