## Facts

- Indiana’s State Board of Law Examiners screened bar applicants for character and fitness, including mental-health-related screening.
- Plaintiffs (a law school ACLU student chapter and an Indiana bar applicant) sued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking relief for a class of similarly situated applicants.
- The challenged Indiana bar application questions were:
  - Question 22: whether the applicant had ever been diagnosed with or treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder.
  - Question 23: whether, from age 16 to the present, the applicant had been diagnosed with or treated for any mental, emotional, or nervous disorder.
  - Question 24: whether the applicant had any condition or impairment that might currently impact the ability to practice law.
  - Question 25: if “yes” to Question 24, an explanation including whether any impact was mitigated by treatment or monitoring.
- Applicants answering “yes” could be required to provide additional information and could be referred for further assessment; the Board could accept, conditionally accept, or deny the application.
- After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Questions 22–25 constituted prohibited eligibility criteria under ADA Title II because they screened out or tended to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities based on mental-health history.
2. Whether each challenged question was sufficiently job-related and narrowly tailored to identify applicants who posed a “direct threat” to the public or to the proper functioning of the legal system.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs as to Question 23 and denied the Board’s motion as to that question.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Board as to Questions 22, 24, and 25 and denied plaintiffs’ motion as to those questions.
- The court enjoined continued use of Question 23 but permitted the Board to continue using Questions 22, 24, and 25.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA bars public entities, including state licensing bodies, from imposing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities unless the criteria are necessary for the program or service.
- A public entity may apply eligibility criteria needed to prevent a “direct threat,” but the criteria must be supported by objective justification and be appropriately tailored.
- Diagnosis- or treatment-history questions that are sweeping and untethered to current fitness may violate the ADA by targeting disability status rather than present ability or risk.
- More limited inquiries focused on particular serious disorders or on current functional impact—and permitting consideration of treatment or monitoring—are more likely to satisfy Title II because they assess present capacity and potential risk.

## Conclusion

The court drew a line between impermissible, expansive questioning about any mental-health diagnosis or treatment since adolescence and permissible, narrower inquiries tied to serious conditions or current functional impact on law practice, invalidating only the broad catch-all history question under ADA Title II.


ACLU of Ind.-Ind. Univ. Sch. of Law-Indianapolis Chapter & Perdue v. Individual Members of the Ind. State Bd. of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-cv-842-TWP-MJD, 2011 WL 4387470 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 20, 2011)