FIRST ON FOX: The American Bar Association’s expected panelist from its council on law school accreditation ended up no-showing at a conservative Federalist Society event about the ABA’s “monopoly” on law school accreditation.
The Trump administration has accused the ABA of acting as a politicized gatekeeper, executive agencies have restricted their members from attending ABA events, and its diversity-related law school accreditation standards have been regarded as unlawful. Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi later escalated that effort by telling the ABA it would no longer receive special access to the judicial vetting process, which followed concerns its rating process for federal judicial nominees was biased as well. .
At the Thursday event, which was held across the street from where the ABA was holding its spring antitrust conference, America First Legal President Gene Hamilton suggested the ABA no-showed because the group’s position on the matter is “indefensible.”
“I don’t know all the backstory. I mean, I’m just a moderator, but I think that there’s a certain amount – if I was a betting man – my suspicion is that the ABA’s status quo and their position and their involvement in the process is indefensible from the perspective of somebody who tries to present themselves as being an unbiased, uninterested party that is just simply involved in accrediting law schools,” said Hamilton.
DOJ BLASTS ‘PARTISAN’ DC BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIAL
“When they’re confronted with hard facts and evidence and data and actual experiences from real people, multiple people, not just one person, but multiple people, it doesn’t make for a great environment if you’re trying to maintain an image that does not match reality.”
The panelists at Thursday’s event pointed to what they described as concrete, firsthand clashes with the ABA and the legal institutions tied to it. First Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Brent Webster, for example, argued that the politicization of the legal establishment became real for him when the State Bar of Texas sought to strip him and Attorney General Ken Paxton of their law licenses over litigation Texas had filed after the 2020 election.
Webster said that fight, which ended with the Texas Supreme Court vindicating him, helped expose to Texas officials how deeply bar institutions had been “radicalized” and contributed to the state’s decision to loosen the ABA’s hold over law-school approval.
Meanwhile, David Dewhirst, Solicitor General for the State of Florida, made a parallel argument through the experience of St. Thomas University’s law school in Miami, which he said was left in prolonged uncertainty by the ABA over whether its Catholic identity could coexist with the ABA’s nondiscrimination standards, especially on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Together, those stories were presented as real-world examples of the broader complaint underscored at the Thursday event – that the ABA is no longer acting as a neutral professional body, but as an ideological gatekeeper with the power to shape who gets trained, licensed and recognized in the legal profession.
A representative from the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar said former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and Chair-elect of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Bar Admissions, Melissa Hart, was not even aware she had been listed as a panelist. They added that the invitation, sent to them on March 13, according to the Federalist Society, was “last-minute” and no one was available to attend, despite the Federalist society telling Fox News that their open invite to the ABA had been confirmed about a week after it was sent.
“From the perspective of the ABA, when they’re under significant pressure right now from both the federal administration, the states and a lot of people waking up to their shenanigans – it makes it a tough time to be in an environment that is a little bit more direct and blunt and to the point,” Hamilton added about the ABA’s absence at the event.
At the event, Hamilton unveiled a new report from America First Legal, which showed ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs, over the last decade, has produced 80% of left-leaning liberal arguments, 20% neutral and zero that are conservatively aligned. In all six cases, the ABA has filed amicus briefs involving Trump, the ABA went against the president or his allies.
“The ABA requires that amicus briefs be authorized by its board of governors and must be consistent with existing ABA policy or involve matters of ‘special significance to lawyers or the legal profession,'” a press release from AFL argued. “Briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors and the Texas heartbeat law fall well outside that mandate,” AFL said in a press release announcing the new research.
