California Bar Exam Changes Hundreds of Scores From 'Fail' to 'Pass'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
More than 200 California Bar Exam test takers have had their scores revised after the State Bar of California re-scored tests taken in February.
This decision comes after multiple lawsuits were filed over the February exam, a test that was riddled with technical difficulties, including some test-takers not even being able to access the test online as its platform kept crashing. Now, 230 more test takers have been told they passed the exam.
While the California State Bar has said the exam "was marred by widespread technological, environmental, and proctor issues causing unacceptable disruptions for some test takers," some lawyers have expressed concern that the new scoring from February's test will result in unqualified lawyers practicing in the state.
In this July 14, 2010, file photo, gavels and law books are shown in the office of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George at his office in San Francisco, California.
In this July 14, 2010, file photo, gavels and law books are shown in the office of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George at his office in San Francisco, California.
Jeff Chiu, file/AP Photo
Why It Matters
This mass score adjustment potentially alters the trajectory of hundreds of legal careers and places a heightened focus on the credibility of bar licensing in the country's most populous state.
The February test faced technological glitches as it was the first iteration of the bar exam in California to be taken as a hybrid model, not a solely in-person test. The lengthy technological and legal challenges faced following the examination raise questions about how to best modernize the bar exam across the US.
What To Know
February Exam Difficulties
Test takers in February faced several technological and environmental difficulties. At the time of the test, Reuters reported people experiencing internet outages in official examination rooms and proctor disruptions.
The California Bar reported that several test-takers with accommodations for learning difficulties were unable to access their extra time due to the program freezing or due to the start of the test being delayed.
Other accommodation issues reported by the California Bar included the camera monitoring policy, which reduced test takers' bathroom, food, medication, or rest breaks; noise in proctored exam rooms; and people being denied previously approved accommodations, such as semi-private rooms and speech-to-text headphones.
Additionally, the California Bar found that several test takers had been graded on someone else's exam and/or essay responses, and they found that 13 test takers were told they did not pass when they actually did.
Following the exam, two test takers and the California Bar sued the company that administered the faulty exam, Meazure Learning.
Details of the Scoring Change
The Committee of Bar Examiners revised its policy for examinees whose scores were marginally below passing and who qualified for a second review of written responses.
Initially, the bar averaged the first and second-read scores. The new policy assigns the higher of the two scores, Reuters reported. This adjustment affected 230 test takers. The change does not require California Supreme Court approval, Bloomberg Law reported.
The bar stated that examinees impacted by the recalculation would be informed of their updated pass status during the first week of June 2025, based on a Friday email to test takers reviewed by Reuters.
They have also offered test takers the option to retake portions of the exam in July.
This change came after the California Supreme Court already allowed for "scoring remedial measures" to be put in place on May 2 which resulted in lowering the score needed to pass.
What People Are Saying
The State Bar of California said in a statement reviewed by Reuters: "The bar would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission."
State Bar of California Board Executive Brandon Stallings told the press in March: "We are deeply concerned about the issues and experiences reported by February bar exam test takers. We understand the anger and sense of urgency commenters expressed."
What Happens Next
The state bar has asked the California Supreme Court to extend a provisional licensure program created during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow unsuccessful February applicants to practice law while working under attorney supervision. The California Supreme Court has not ruled on this proposal as of publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores Legal Win in 'Alligator Alcatraz' Fight
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal judge in Miami has dismissed part of a lawsuit brought by immigrant advocates challenging detainees' access to legal process at "Alligator Alcatraz," handing state and federal officials a partial win aligned with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. Why It Matters The ruling marks a partial victory for Trump and Florida officials defending the South Detention Facility, nicknamed "Alligator Alcatraz," in the Florida Everglades, but it leaves unresolved questions about detainees' rights and legal access. By dismissing one constitutional claim while transferring the rest of the case to another court, Judge Rodolfo Ruiz underscored the facility's contested role in the president's immigration agenda and set the stage for continued litigation over whether detainees face unconstitutional barriers to attorney access. What To Know In a 47-page ruling issued Monday night, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz dismissed a claim that detainees at the facility were denied access to immigration courts, finding it moot after the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as the immigration court with jurisdiction over detainees' cases on Saturday. "Several developments have occurred since Plaintiffs filed this case," Ruiz wrote. "First, many of the Detained Plaintiffs have been transferred out of Alligator Alcatraz. Second, many of the Detained Plaintiffs (including those who have since been transferred out of Alligator Alcatraz) have received access to counsel, and all the Attorney Plaintiffs have received access to Alligator Alcatraz detainees." Ruiz, a Trump nominee to the bench, granted the state defendants' motion to transfer for improper venue from the Southern District of Florida to the Middle District, where the facility is located. The case will now proceed there on the remaining claims alleging violations of detainees' First Amendment rights to communicate with counsel. President Donald Trump speaks to the press after touring Alligator Alcatraz in Florida on July 1, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks to the press after touring Alligator Alcatraz in Florida on July 1, 2025. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images Lawsuit Background Filed July 16, the lawsuit alleges that detainees held at the facility were deprived of timely and confidential access to lawyers and left unable to file petitions in immigration court. Civil rights attorneys said detainees had difficulty contacting their lawyers, sometimes waiting weeks for meetings or phone calls; they alleged that one person was deported without being able to reach counsel and that a mentally disabled man was encouraged to sign a voluntary departure form without an attorney present. Plaintiffs also argued they could not petition an immigration court because the government had not specified which court had jurisdiction over the facility. That changed on Saturday, when EOIR publicly designated Krome as the court with jurisdiction, an action Ruiz said resolved one of the plaintiffs' central claims. State and Federal Positions Lawyers for Florida and for the Trump administration argued the suit was filed in the wrong venue because the facility sits on an airstrip in Collier County (Middle District of Florida). They also noted that many detainees had been transferred and had received attorney access by the time of the ruling. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has defended the detention center as an essential part of Trump's immigration enforcement efforts. Built on an isolated airstrip surrounded by swampland, the facility has an estimated annual cost of $450 million and was intended to serve as both a secure holding site and a deterrent. Supporters liken its remote setting to Alcatraz Island, the source of its nickname. What People Are Saying From Judge Rodolfo Ruiz's order: "This is a classic case of mootness. The Bond Plaintiffs have therefore received all the relief they seek. The Court can do no more." Eunice Cho, lead attorney for the ACLU representing the plaintiffs: It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution." The ACLU maintains that detainees still face obstacles to counsel, including a lack of private communications and delays in arranging visits. What Happens Next The dismissal of the Fifth Amendment claim represents a partial win for state and federal officials defending the facility and is aligned with Trump's agenda. The case now moves to the Middle District of Florida, where judges will weigh the remaining First Amendment claims about alleged barriers to legal access. Civil rights groups may seek injunctive relief to expand attorney contact, while state and federal officials are expected to argue that access has improved. As Ruiz noted, the case has had "a tortured procedural history," and further litigation over "Alligator Alcatraz" is expected in the months ahead.
Epoch Times
29 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
California Republicans File Suit to Bar Democrats' Redistricting Plan
US Citing the state constitution, the plaintiffs asked the California Supreme Court to act by Aug. 20 to either rule on the case or bar any action for 30 days. California Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit on Aug. 18 to block a Democrat-backed redistricting plan. Championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the plan aims to shift five U.S. congressional seats in California from Republicans to Democrats.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins: American Farmland Is Not for Chinese Solar Panels
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In rural Tennessee, standing before more than 1,200 farmers, ranchers, and future farmers of America, I unveiled the next step in protecting our family farms and our way of life: ending taxpayer subsidization of foreign solar panels on prime farmland. Over the past few years, the unchecked expansion of solar farms, heavily subsidized by the federal government and fueled by foreign adversaries like China, has proved a serious obstacle for new farmers. The massive amount of prime farmland consumed by these projects makes land more expensive, less available, and out of reach for the next generation of producers. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins speaks alongside Texas Governor Greg Abbott during a news conference in the State Capitol on August 15, 2025, in Austin, Texas. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins speaks alongside Texas Governor Greg Abbott during a news conference in the State Capitol on August 15, 2025, in Austin, of the biggest barriers for new farmers is access to farmland. In a nation blessed with 880 million acres of farmland, it is unacceptable to price young families out of the American Dream. That's why the Department of Agriculture in the Trump-Vance administration is taking bold action to eliminate USDA programs that spend taxpayer dollars subsidizing solar panels on productive farmland. In the last 30 years in Tennessee alone, farmers have already lost over 1.1 million acres and are projected to lose another 2 million acres by 2027. Across the country, solar panels on farmland have skyrocketed by nearly 50 percent since 2021. While cash rents are already climbing, averaging $160 per acre this year, solar companies are luring landowners with payouts as high as $1,500 per acre annually. That puts family farmers in an impossible position during tough economic times. The consequences extend far beyond farmland loss. Solar panel construction damages the soil, compacts the ground, and changes drainage patterns, threatening nearby productive acreage. The Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act and federal solar tax credits have only worsened this problem, accelerating competition for farmland and driving up costs. This is perhaps one of the greatest moral crimes of the past administration, in that it enlisted both the American taxpayer and the government of the United States against the American farmer—and it now ends. Ending these reckless subsidies is about more than protecting farmland; it's about securing American energy dominance. For too long, Washington has forced taxpayers to underwrite unreliable and expensive energy sources like wind and solar, leaving our grid weaker and our nation more dependent on foreign supply chains controlled by our adversaries. Thanks to President Donald Trump's July executive order on ending market-distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources, those days are over. No American tax dollars will be funneled to Beijing for unreliable energy projects. We are taking this action because agriculture is not only America's first industry, but its foundational industry. And when I look out at today's farmers, I also see the next generation, men and women who will carry forward the torch of liberty that has secured the promise of America for almost 250 years. Through the next 41 months, we will leave no stone unturned in protecting our farmland, strengthening our family farms, and defending a way of life that has carried our nation through every challenge. Brooke L. Rollins is the 33rd United States secretary of Agriculture. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
