ACLU of Indiana v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners

The Indiana State Board of Law Examiners (board) (defendant) oversaw the admission of applicants to the state bar. The process required assessing applicants’ character, fitness, and qualifications to practice law. Because of lawyers’ significant responsibilities, the board screened applicants for mental fitness. Application question 22 asked whether an applicant had ever been diagnosed with or treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder. Question 23 asked whether, between age 16 and the present, an applicant had been diagnosed with or treated for any mental, emotional, or nervous disorders. Question 24 asked whether an applicant had any condition or impairment that might in any way currently impact the applicant’s ability to practice law. Question 25 asked applicants who said yes to question 24 to explain whether the impact was mitigated by current treatment or a monitoring program. An applicant who answered yes to any of these questions was required to complete an additional form providing further information. If the board had concerns after reviewing the application and form, the board could refer the applicant to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for further assessment. The board then decided whether to accept, conditionally accept, or deny the application. Few applications were denied on mental-health grounds. Nevertheless, bar applicant Amanda Perdue and the ACLU chapter at the Indiana University School of Law (plaintiffs) sued the board, arguing that questions 22 to 25 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by tending to screen out applicants because of a disability. Both sides moved for summary judgment.