California bar exam meltdown prompts March retake offer, SCOTUS lets Trump's foreign aid freeze to continue, Senate panel to press CFPB pick and more?

?? Good morning from The Legal File! Here is the rundown of today's top legal news:

??California bar exam meltdown prompts offer of March retakes

The State Bar of California is offering a retake of its February bar exam after examinees experienced "significant" technical issues or were unable to launch the test on Feb. 25.

Feb. 25 marked the debut of California's hybrid, two-day remote and in-person exam without any components of the national bar exam, which the state has used for decades.

David Drelinger, a 2023 graduate of the California-accredited Lincoln Law School in Sacramento, said he tried to start the exam more than 30 times, with the testing platform crashing each time a proctor logged on to his computer. He then switched internet connections and laptops three times during the day, to no avail.

"I've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars" into becoming a lawyer, Drelinger said. "It's supposed to pay off, eventually. It feels so far out of reach right now. I don't know if I can do this to myself again."

In an email to examinees on Feb. 25, the state bar acknowledged problems with the copy and paste function of the testing software and said some people were disconnected and unable to complete the essay portion.

The February retake — an unprecedented step for the exam law graduates must pass to become licensed — will be March 3 and 4 for those who faced tech problems, it added.

Read more.

??US Supreme Court allows Trump's freeze of foreign aid funding temporarily

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Feb. 26 paused a federal judge's order requiring President Donald Trump's administration to pay foreign aid funds to contractors and grant recipients.

Roberts issued an interim order placing on hold U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's action that had imposed a deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 26. He provided no rationale for the order, known as an administrative stay, which will give the court additional time to consider the administration's more formal request to block Ali's ruling.

Roberts asked for a response from the plaintiffs — organizations that contract with or receive grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department — by noon on Feb. 28.

The order came after Trump's administration said in a court filing earlier that it had made final decisions terminating most U.S. foreign aid contracts and grants, while maintaining that it cannot meet Ali's court-ordered deadline.

Read more.

?? US Senate panel to press consumer watchdog pick

Jonathan McKernan, President Trump's pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is due to face a grilling from Democrats in the Senate as the White House presses ahead with aggressive efforts to dismantle the agency.

McKernan will testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 27, where he will face off against Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the panel who also helped establish the watchdog after its creation in 2010.

The hearing will mark the first time Democrats, incensed at the dismantling of an agency they view as a critical safeguard for consumers using financial products, will be able to directly press a Republican official on the future of the agency.

Under the acting leadership of Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, the CFPB has been effectively shuttered, with the agency's doors locked and most staff placed on administrative leave.

Read more.

???US Supreme Court seems poised to lower bar for 'reverse discrimination' suits

Supreme Court justices on Feb. 26 appeared to lean toward making it easier for people from "majority backgrounds," such as white or straight people, to pursue workplace discrimination claims, as they heard an appeal by an Ohio woman who claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.

The justices heard arguments in a case in which the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, has asked them to revive her civil rights lawsuit against her employer, Ohio's Department of Youth Services, after lower courts sided with the state. The justices — liberal and conservative alike — seemed poised to throw out a ruling against Ames by the 6th Circuit and direct lower courts to reconsider the matter.

At issue in the Ames case is the requirement by some U.S. courts that plaintiffs from majority groups provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to show they faced discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 6th Circuit concluded in 2023 that Ames had not shown the required "background circumstances" indicating that a defendant accused of workplace bias is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Xiao Wang, the lawyer arguing for Ames, said SCOTUS has decided in prior rulings that "Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace."

"But the background circumstances rule doesn't do that. It doesn't eradicate discrimination," Wang said. "It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex or their protected characteristic" and applying an evidentiary presumption against plaintiffs "based solely on their being in a majority group, however you define it."

Read more.

?? That's all for today, thank you for reading The Legal File, and have a great day!

For more legal industry news, read and subscribe to The Daily Docket.