A sweeping directive from the Department of Labor’s chief legal officer has abruptly severed ties between the agency and the American Bar Association. Solicitor Jonathan Berry issued a stark order Monday, instructing all department attorneys to cease official engagement with the ABA, citing concerns over perceived liberal activism.
The core of Berry’s argument rests on the belief that the ABA presents a carefully constructed facade of neutrality. He contends the organization strategically shifts between appearing non-ideological and actively championing progressive causes, effectively leveraging its influence to push a specific agenda.
This move isn’t isolated. It represents a continuation of a broader effort, initiated during the previous administration, to diminish the ABA’s power and influence within the legal landscape. Similar policies were previously enacted at the Department of Justice, resulting in the termination of over $3 million in federal grants.
That earlier action faced legal challenge, with a judge ultimately ruling the funding cuts unconstitutional. The Federal Trade Commission also distanced itself from the ABA’s antitrust division, alleging it prioritized the interests of large technology companies.
For years, Republicans have voiced concerns that the ABA consistently favors Democrat-aligned perspectives, creating an uneven playing field for conservative legal professionals. The ABA’s public stance on issues like LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, gun control, and diversity initiatives has fueled these criticisms.
The ABA hasn’t shied away from political commentary, even directly criticizing the actions of a former president, denouncing what its leadership termed “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law.” This outspokenness has further solidified the perception of partisan bias.
The ABA’s influence extends far beyond public statements. It plays a significant role in evaluating judicial nominees, actively participates in legal battles, and impacts hiring practices within the legal profession. Crucially, the ABA also oversees the accreditation of law schools.
A precedent for this shift was set when the Department of Justice, under a previous Attorney General, ended the long-standing practice of consulting the ABA on judicial nominations. This effectively removed the ABA’s ability to provide pre-announcement ratings of potential judges.
Berry’s email to Labor Department staff explicitly states that continued participation in ABA events, even those seemingly neutral, would inadvertently bolster an organization he believes is actively pursuing “radical goals.” He concluded with a firm directive: “No more.”
The implications of this decision are significant, potentially reshaping the relationship between a major government agency and the nation’s largest legal association. The ABA has been contacted for a response, but has not yet issued a statement.
