A recent report from America First Legal (AFL) stirs concerns about the American Bar Association’s (ABA) alleged drift toward partisanship. The conservative watchdog group claims that the ABA has become predominantly a left-leaning entity, backing the Democratic agenda at the expense of a balanced perspective.
According to AFL’s findings, a staggering 80% of the amicus briefs filed by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs in the last decade support liberal arguments. In contrast, only 20% are deemed neutral or lacking a conservative alignment. When it comes to cases involving former President Donald Trump, the ABA consistently took a stance against him or his associates, raising eyebrows among those who believe in the importance of impartiality in legal institutions.
The ABA wields significant influence as one of the foremost trade associations for legal professionals, yet some conservatives now refer to its substantial authority as monopolistic. Trump’s criticisms of the ABA echoed these sentiments during his presidency. He accused the organization of leveraging its accrediting power to favor candidates aligned with the Democratic Party when evaluating judicial nominations.
AFL highlights specific cases handled by the ABA that stray far from its stated mission. “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,'” says the group’s press release. “Briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors, and the Texas heartbeat law fall well outside that mandate.” This suggests the ABA’s focus on contentious social issues is misaligned with its governing principles and raises questions about its role in the legal arena.
Despite AFL’s request for a response, the ABA did not reply to inquiries regarding these allegations. This silence adds to the perception of an organization unwilling to engage in what many view as necessary self-reflection or accountability. The audit covering amicus briefs from April 2016 to February 2026 revealed that out of 87 briefs, 70 favored liberal outcomes, with AFL identifying a notable absence of conservative-aligned filings.
Moreover, the audit’s results are particularly striking when considering cases involving Trump or his administration. Every single amicus brief related to Trump, according to AFL, countered the positions of the former president or his officials. Gene Hamilton, President of America First Legal, voiced that the findings present a stark contrast to the ABA’s claims of neutrality. “The data tells a different story. More than four in five briefs push a progressive agenda… The ABA is not a neutral arbiter,” Hamilton stated, calling for recognition of the organization’s shift toward a role similar to that of a liberal advocacy group.
The Trump administration has responded to these concerns. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced a policy preventing political appointees from holding leadership positions within the ABA, participating in its events, or renewing memberships. This decision is part of a broader strategy to counter perceived bias within the organization. Further actions, such as a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi, indicated the Department of Justice’s withdrawal from its previous partnership in vetting judicial nominees, citing the ABA’s reluctance to address criticism surrounding its bias.
April 2025 marked another significant step when Trump signed an Executive Order targeting the ABA and other influential accrediting bodies. This order warned that entities engaging in unlawful discrimination would risk losing federal recognition, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to scrutinizing the ABA’s practices.
This ongoing debate about the ABA’s stance raises critical questions about the role of professional organizations in shaping legal outcomes. Are they serving the legal profession as intended, or have they transformed into vehicles of political advocacy? The implications extend beyond the legal community, suggesting a broader trend of increasing partisanship in institutions that many believe should remain impartial. The conversation around the ABA’s future and its alignment will likely continue to draw attention, especially considering the stakes involved in judicial nominations and legal precedent.
"*" indicates required fields
