A scheduled representative from the American Bar Association conspicuously failed to appear at a recent Federalist Society event focused on the ABA’s role in law school accreditation. The event, held directly across from the ABA’s own antitrust conference, highlighted growing concerns about the organization’s influence and potential bias.
The absence sparked immediate speculation. America First Legal President Gene Hamilton suggested the ABA avoided the event because its position on accreditation is “indefensible” under scrutiny. He posited that confronting factual evidence and personal experiences challenges the ABA’s carefully cultivated image of impartiality.
Panelists at the event shared firsthand accounts of clashes with the ABA and affiliated legal institutions. Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas, described how the State Bar of Texas attempted to revoke his and Attorney General Ken Paxton’s law licenses following post-2020 election litigation. This experience, he stated, revealed a deep “radicalization” within bar associations.
David Dewhirst, Solicitor General for Florida, recounted the prolonged uncertainty faced by St. Thomas University’s law school in Miami. The ABA questioned whether the school’s Catholic identity could align with its nondiscrimination standards regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, creating a challenging situation for the institution.
These stories collectively painted a picture of the ABA as an ideological gatekeeper, wielding significant power over who is trained, licensed, and recognized within the legal profession – a departure from its stated role as a neutral professional body. The concerns center on the ABA’s accreditation standards and their potential to shape the future of the legal field.
The ABA responded by stating that the listed panelist, former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart, was unaware she had been scheduled to participate. They characterized the invitation as “last-minute” and claimed no one was available to attend, a claim disputed by the Federalist Society.
Hamilton argued the ABA’s absence was strategic, occurring during a period of intense pressure from federal and state governments, and a growing awareness of its practices. He unveiled a new report from America First Legal revealing a significant imbalance in the ABA’s amicus briefs.
The report detailed that over the past decade, 80% of the ABA’s amicus briefs presented left-leaning arguments, 20% were neutral, and none aligned with conservative viewpoints. In all six cases involving former President Trump, the ABA sided against him or his allies.
America First Legal further argued that the ABA’s amicus briefs on issues like birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors, and the Texas heartbeat law exceeded the scope of its stated mandate, raising questions about the organization’s priorities and influence.
The ABA’s stated policy requires amicus briefs to be authorized by its board of governors and consistent with existing policy or matters of “special significance” to the legal profession. Critics contend these guidelines are being stretched to advance a specific ideological agenda.
