The American Bar Association's expected panelist from its council on law school accreditation did not appear at a conservative Federalist Society event Thursday, where organizers accused the organization of maintaining a "monopoly" over law school accreditation and acting as a politicized gatekeeper.
The event was held across the street from where the ABA was holding its spring antitrust conference. America First Legal President Gene Hamilton, who moderated the panel, suggested the ABA's absence indicated their position on the matter is "indefensible."
"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," Hamilton said.
A representative from the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar said former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart, who was listed as a panelist, was not aware she had been identified as a participant. The representative said the invitation, sent March 13 according to the Federalist Society, was "last-minute" and no one was available to attend.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics, including officials from the Trump administration and state attorneys general, have accused the ABA of acting as a politicized gatekeeper that uses its accreditation power to impose ideological requirements on law schools.
At the Thursday event, Texas First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster described his experience when the State Bar of Texas sought to strip him and Attorney General Ken Paxton of their law licenses over litigation related to the 2020 election. Webster said the fight, which ended with the Texas Supreme Court vindicating him, revealed how bar institutions had been "radicalized."
Florida Solicitor General David Dewhirst presented the experience of St. Thomas University's law school in Miami, which he said faced prolonged uncertainty from the ABA over whether its Catholic identity could coexist with the organization's nondiscrimination standards on sexual orientation and gender identity.
America First Legal unveiled a new report at the event arguing that the ABA's Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs has produced 80% left-leaning liberal arguments over the last decade, with 20% neutral and zero conservatively aligned briefs. In all six cases involving Trump, the organization filed amicus briefs against the president or his allies.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics have defended the ABA's role in legal accreditation, arguing that the organization's standards ensure quality legal education and protect consumers from unqualified practitioners. Supporters say the ABA's nondiscrimination requirements protect students from discriminatory institutions and maintain professional standards that serve the public interest.
Legal ethics experts have noted that the ABA's accreditation standards, including requirements related to diversity and inclusion, were developed over decades through a democratic process within the legal profession. They argue that attacks on the ABA represent an effort to weaken professional self-regulation in favor of political control.
Some legal observers have questioned whether the Trump administration's critiques of the ABA amount to retaliation for the organization's historical ratings of judicial nominees, which have sometimes been critical of candidates regardless of who appointed them.
What the Numbers Show
The Trump administration has taken several actions targeting the ABA: executive agencies have restricted their members from attending ABA events, and Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the organization would no longer receive special access to the judicial vetting process.
The ABA's Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs has filed briefs in cases involving birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors, and the Texas heartbeat law, which America First Legal argues fall outside the organization's stated mandate to focus on matters of special significance to lawyers or the legal profession.
Texas has moved to loosen the ABA's hold over law school approval, citing concerns about the organization's political alignment. The State Bar of Texas dispute with Webster and Paxton ended with the Texas Supreme Court ruling in the attorneys' favor.
The Bottom Line
The ABA's absence from the Federalist Society panel highlights the escalating tension between the Trump administration and the organization that has long played a central role in legal accreditation and judicial nominee ratings. The administration has accused the ABA of acting as a partisan actor, while defenders say the organization maintains professional standards that serve the public interest. The dispute reflects broader debates about the role of professional associations in shaping the legal profession and whether accreditation standards reflect legitimate quality controls or ideological imposition. Future developments may include continued state-level challenges to ABA authority and potential legislative responses to the administration's critiques.