In response to the July 2026 bar exam failures, the Washington Supreme Court granted a waiver to all first-time examinees who were entirely unable to complete the exam but excluded accommodated examinees who were able to complete portions of the exam with significant delays, interruptions, and distractions, and repeat examinees.
As Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice faculty, we were deeply concerned about the impact this order had on accommodated examinees in particular. Troubled by the potential discriminatory impact this decision could have, on August 13, 2026, we submitted a letter to the Washington Supreme Court asking for their reconsideration of the order. Unfortunately, on August 14, 2026, the court declined to reconsider its initial order limiting relief to first-time examinees who could not complete the exam. In a blanket response rejecting the many requests to reconsider, the court stated it “recognized its resolution was neither perfect nor individually tailored to each applicants’ circumstances. That kind of tailoring was not possible ...”
Below is an excerpted version of the letter to the court.
The Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice applauds the court for addressing the challenging circumstances presented by the unsuccessful administration of the July bar exam. In recognizing the need to offer exam waivers, this court ensured that hundreds of future members of the Washington Bar can pursue their profession and work toward greater justice in our state.
However, the center has significant concerns about the harm created by the order. On its face, the denial of relief to all applicants who completed the exam may appear fair - but this group is comprised entirely of accommodated examinees. Their exclusion from eligibility for exam waivers ignores accessibility barriers and is inconsistent with the court’s anti-discrimination jurisprudence that examines impact rather than intent.
According to the survey the center circulated to document the severity of accessibility barriers experienced by accommodated examinees, the overwhelming majority of respondents experienced a testing environment that was so compromised as to deny them an accessible exam.
Fifty-seven first-time accommodated bar examinees responded to the survey. Among respondents, 95% reported experiencing disruptions during their exam, with more than half of respondents who experienced disruptions reporting 5+ disruptions. Respondents reported various disruptions, including: Wi-Fi connectivity (87%), proctor disruption (55%), disruptions by other examinees (55%), and submission problems (55%). Nearly half reported various other disruptions, including: delays impacting break times and time for exam completion, software/platform malfunctions, derogatory comments by proctors, and failure to honor gender-specific accommodations. 52% reported tech support was inadequate.
Several test-takers report that the disruptions rendered their approved accommodations meaningless.
“I took my medication when I normally would but we didn’t end up starting until quite a bit later than scheduled … by the time we did my medication was already wearing off and I had to decide between an uncertain dosage or operating a lower capacity. "
“Many accommodated test takers were placed in separate rooms due to … susceptibility to distractions. Yet, the exam administered was filled with constant distractions, noises, and disruptions.”
“I did not receive the full break time provided under my approved accommodations ... I was required to continue an already extended day without receiving the full break time contemplated by my approved accommodations.”
These reports necessarily raise concerns that the court’s decision to exclude them from exam waivers will result in a discriminatory outcome.
The ADA requires that state bar exams be administered to individuals with disabilities in an accessible manner, including by offering alternative arrangements where necessary. The ADA requirements are designed to permit people with disabilities to access the bar exam on an equal basis with examinees who do not have disabilities, and are essential to establishing a level playing field. When examinees with disabilities are required to take a professional exam without necessary accommodations, they are tested more on their capacity to manage their disabilities than their subject matter aptitude.
The denial of relief to accommodated examinees risks replicating stigma and bias in the legal profession related to disability accommodations and the perception that those who receive them are getting preferential treatment. Many accommodated bar examinees feel that the court’s decision has forced them to disclose their disability by admitting that they do not qualify for exam waiver.
“It was a gut punch to feel exposed [] and to know that my test would be graded by people who knew I had accommodations; that my job applications and interviews would be with employers who would know I had accommodations; that friends/family I had not disclosed my health issues to would now know I was accommodated; that many people believe accommodations are unfair advantages rather than equitable measures; and that my colleagues who did not have accommodations now knew I had them.”
“I was forced to disclose to my employer about my accommodations. … I am a first-generation woman of color and imposter syndrome is already very heavy. I never thought I would ever have to disclose this to anyone about my accommodations. Instead now I worry I might be discriminated by my disability.”
The denial of relief to this group risks undermining diversity of the Washington bar and compromising quality representation for clients with disabilities by excluding from the profession attorneys with personal understanding of issues relevant to the clients’ experiences.
The court’s exclusion of those who completed the exam avoids the analysis of actual impact that the court often conducts in both litigation and rulemaking. As the survey demonstrates, nearly all respondents experienced a compromised testing environment that denied them an accessible exam. The only logical conclusion is that the court’s order will result in discriminatory outcomes.
The Washington Supreme Court has led the nation with respect to equity, justice, and inclusion. Reconsideration of the court’s order to recognize the discriminatory impact of excluding accommodated examinees from opting for admission by order will address the harm experienced by this group.
Read the center’s complete letter to the Washington Supreme Court here.