Panelist Missing at ABA Event Criticized by Federalist Society

A panelist chosen by the American Bar Association (ABA) was notably absent from an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society, which addressed the ABA’s perceived “monopoly” on law school accreditation.

The Trump administration has gone as far as accusing the ABA of being a politicized gatekeeper. They’ve pointed out issues like restricted participation in ABA events and questioned the legality of accreditation standards tied to diversity. Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, added to these criticisms by reinforcing the notion that the ABA was biased in evaluating federal judges by threatening to limit the ABA’s special access to the judicial review process.

At the Thursday event, Gene Hamilton, the president of America First Legal Group, suggested that it might be best to skip the ABA altogether, calling its stance on the issue “indefensible.” He noted, somewhat hesitantly, “I don’t know all of the backstory. I mean, I’m just a moderator. But I suspect that the ABA’s current posture isn’t merely about law accreditation”—he implied that the organization’s claim to impartiality is questionable.

Hamilton elaborated, saying, “When you’re trying to uphold an image that doesn’t align with reality, it’s just not a good environment.” Many panelists shared similar sentiments, citing conflicts with the ABA and its legal frameworks.

For instance, Brent Webster, the Texas First Assistant Attorney General, described how a Texas court attempted to disqualify him and Attorney General Ken Paxton from practicing law, which was linked to a lawsuit after the 2020 election. Ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court vindicated him, leading to concerns about the growing politicization of the judiciary, prompting Texas to reconsider the ABA’s role in law school accreditation.

Florida Attorney General David Dewhurst echoed these thoughts, reflecting on his experiences at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Miami. He highlighted uncertainties around whether Catholic identity could exist harmoniously with the ABA’s nondiscrimination standards, particularly regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

These examples were presented as part of a larger narrative suggesting that the ABA has shifted away from being a neutral body and now acts as a gatekeeper in ideological matters concerning legal training and licensing.

A spokesperson from the ABA noted that Melissa Hart, who recently served on the Colorado Supreme Court and is set to chair the ABA’s Division of Legal Education, was unaware she had been listed as a panelist. The Federalist Society claimed the invitation, sent on March 13, was last minute and ultimately, no one from the ABA attended, although the invitation was confirmed about a week later.

Hamilton commented on the ABA’s absence, saying, “The ABA is under significant pressure from various parties, including the federal government, which complicates the setting for more candid and open discussions.”

Additionally, Hamilton unveiled a report from America First Legal, which indicated that 80 percent of claims made by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs over the last decade have leaned left-liberal, with no indications of conservative claims. In cases involving Trump, the ABA’s amicus briefs stood against him or his allies.

The report suggested a disconnect between what the ABA claims to support and the kind of issues addressed in legal briefs, emphasizing a need for examination of their claims and actions.