On Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland faced significant pushback as the Department of Labor’s Solicitor, Jonathan Berry, issued a clarion call to his staff: disengage from the American Bar Association (ABA). In an email obtained by Fox News, Berry asserted that involvement with the ABA serves only to amplify what he termed “liberal activism.” He stressed the importance of not allowing taxpayer resources to sustain any collaboration with the organization.
Berry’s message highlights an escalating trend in federal agencies distancing themselves from established entities perceived to exhibit a left-leaning bias. He explained that the ABA, which positions itself as a neutral body committed to legal integrity, often straddles the ideological fence. “Equivocal in that the ABA holds itself out as non-ideological at certain times, but takes decidedly radical ideological positions at others,” he noted.
The Solicitor acknowledged both the potential benefits of engaging with the ABA and the risk it poses. The ABA’s so-called neutral events contribute to its perceived authority, which Berry contends is leveraged to further radical agendas disguised as impartial discourse. “No more,” he declared unequivocally, signaling a clear stance against what he perceives as an unchecked influence of the ABA.
Critics of the ABA recognize it as a powerful trade organization for lawyers, wielding significant influence over legal standards and legislation. Although the ABA claims a commitment to advancing the rule of law and access to justice, its positions often align with progressive views. For instance, the organization has a long history of opposing restrictions on abortion, advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, and pushing for various gun control measures under the guise of public safety. Its advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion also raises concerns, as critics argue that these initiatives enforce a “woke” ideology contrary to traditional legal norms.
Moreover, the ABA’s collaborations with organizations such as the ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund suggest a strategic partnership in promoting issues aligned with leftist agendas, including voting rights and immigration reform. This raises questions about whether the organization can genuinely represent the diverse opinions of its members, given the perception of bias in its judicial ratings, which are alleged to favor liberal nominees.
Berry’s directive to the Department of Labor marks a notable shift, as federal departments begin to reconsider their affiliations with the ABA amid growing scrutiny. In May 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi punctuated this sentiment by notifying the ABA that the Justice Department would cease its compliance with the organization’s judicial ratings process. Bondi’s letter emphasized the historical preferential treatment the ABA had enjoyed in matters concerning judicial nominees.
The fallout from Berry’s email and Bondi’s letter may signal broader repercussions for organizations like the ABA that find themselves entwined with ideologies at odds with a substantial segment of the legal community. As conservative voices in the legal field assert themselves, the ABA’s future as a perceived nonpartisan institution may be challenged. Furthermore, this development reflects a significant moment for federal agencies seeking to shed affiliations that may compromise their integrity and reliability in the eyes of the American public.
"*" indicates required fields
