[O]n its face, the [bar passage] information is factual and uncontroversial. Prospective students are free to draw their own conclusions about its relevance. That [Southern California Institute of Law] may not like those conclusions is irrelevant.

– Judge James V. Selna (C.D. Cal.), in a tentative order dismissing the Southern California Institute of Law’s (SCIL) free speech suit against state bar officials, with prejudice. SCIL argued that having to share information on its website about its bar exam passage rates would force the school to adopt an “ideological belief that a law school should be judged by the passage rates of its graduates.” In the past five years, SCIL’s graduates have passed the state bar exam just 7 percent of the time.

(Keep reading to see Judge Selna’s full First Amendment smackdown.)

Order: Southern California Institute of Law v. Archie Biggers, et al.

Law School Claims Bar Passage Rate is Meaningless [WSJ Law Blog via Morning Docket]
SCIL v. Archie Biggers, et al.: Order [U.S. District Court, Central District of California]


comments sponsored by

21 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments