The American Bar Association (ABA) has intensified its ongoing feud with the Trump administration, launching a fresh lawsuit.
This legal action is the latest development in a long-standing dispute that has seen the Department of Justice (DOJ) attempt to curtail the ABA's influence, while the association has publicly and legally resisted the administration's maneuvers.
According to the Daily Caller, the ABA's lawsuit alleges, "Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like." The suit refers to several executive orders issued by President Trump that have stripped major firms of government contracts and access.
The ABA is currently involved in at least three other legal battles against the Trump administration. These include lawsuits over funds from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the termination of contracts to provide legal services to migrants facing deportation, and the cessation of DOJ grants related to domestic violence and sexual assault.
Robert Luther III, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and a former White House lawyer who worked on judicial nominations during Trumps first term, criticized the ABA's tactics. He stated that the association is "resorting to desperate methods like litigation against the Trump administration to retain their relevance."
Luther further accused the ABA of being a "highly-partisan left-wing organization" with a history of discriminating against outstanding judicial nominees from Republican presidents. He named Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Frank Easterbrook, Daniel Manion, Edith Jones, and Kat Mizelle as victims of the ABA's partisan vetting process. Luther expressed his approval of Attorney General Bondi's decision to continue the trend of excluding the ABA from the judicial nominations vetting process, a practice initiated during Trump's first term.
Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the ABA would no longer be involved in the judicial vetting process. She stated that nominees would no longer be directed to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to nonpublic information, such as bar records, or to participate in the organization's questionnaires and interviews.
The ABA has been involved in vetting candidates since 1953 when President Dwight Eisenhower requested their input. This practice was later discontinued by President George W. Bush and subsequently by President Joe Biden.
In a letter dated May 29, Bondi expressed her concern that the ABA no longer functions as a fair evaluator of nominees' qualifications. She claimed that the association's ratings invariably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. Bondi also criticized the ABA's refusal to address the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the administration, and the academy.
In response, the ABA maintained that the operations of its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary are "separate and independent." The association pointed out that it rated all three of Trump's Supreme Court appointees as well qualified, although it rated eight of Trump's nominees "Not Qualified" during his first term.
The DOJ has previously limited its attorneys from attending or speaking at ABA events and threatened to revoke the association's status as the sole accrediting body for law schools over its diversity requirements.
Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, wrote in an ABA Journal article last year that the organization's future hinges on greater "ideological diversity." He warned that if the ABA does not halt its progressive shift, it risks becoming obsolete.
Blackman predicted that the ABA's model rules would not be adopted, evaluations of judicial nominees would be ignored, and the accreditation monopoly would cease. He concluded that a decline in membership would be the least of the ABA's problems, and that the association must adapt to a new political reality or risk fading away.
Login