The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
FTC Bans Political Appointees From Being ABA Members
The ABA has been planting the seeds of its own demise for decades.
In April 2023, I wrote a column for the ABA Journal titled "The ABA needs ideological diversity to ensure its future." I concluded:
If the ABA does not arrest its progressive lurch, the organization risks its own obsolescence. Model Rules will not be adopted. Evaluations of judicial nominees will be ignored. The accreditation monopoly will cease. And so on. A decline in membership will be the least of the ABA's problems. The ABA can either adapt to a new political reality or fade away like the guilds of yore.
Over the following year, I attempted to work within the ABA to reform the organization. I joined a caucus formed to promote viewpoint diversity within the ABA. I even spoke at the Midyear Meeting, where I explained in clear terms how the ABA's fixation on leftist politics and DEI would spell its demise. My remarks were met with shock. I was called a racist and worse. People objected to my presence on the panel. One person in the audience said that she would defend the ABA's DEI efforts till the bitter end, even if she was the last member. She may yet get her wish. For reasons I will discuss more fully another time, I resigned from the Caucus. In short, I thought the ABA was beyond repair, and my time could be spent better doing other things.
Today, Andrew Ferguson, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, hammered what may be the first nail in the ABA's coffin.
For many years, federal antitrust enforcers and the private antitrust bar have enjoyed a cozy relationship facilitated by the Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA's long history of leftist advocacy and its recent attacks on the Trump-Vance Administration's governing agenda, however, have made this relationship untenable. I therefore have concluded that it does not advance the interests of the United States government for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) political appointees to hold leadership positions in the ABA or to participate in ABA events. Accordingly, I prohibit FTC political appointees from holding leadership positions in the ABA, participating in or attending ABA events, or renewing any existing ABA memberships. I further prohibit the FTC from expending any funds to facilitate any employee's membership in the ABA or participation in, or attendance at, an ABA event.
The FTC is first, but it will not be last. I suspect all federal agencies will follow suit. Whatever difficulties the ABA had with membership numbers will become far worse. And I fully expect the Department of Education to revoke the ABA's accreditation power. The ABA will be left with little reason to exist--at least not at such a large size. There will be no real influence left.
It didn't have to end this way. The ABA could have arrested its decline. Instead, it was captured by leftist groups, and tied itself to the DEI mast.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This escalation can only end well for conservatives!
It's always conservatives who 'escalate", eh?
Republicans 'Pounce" while Democrats "react", conservatives 'escalate" progressives simply "advance political policies"".
1. He didn't say who escalated (though the OP is about the Trump administration's actions)
2. He hasn't in the past evinced any of the semantic double standards you list
2. He's a conservative
Other than that great comment.
Left the ABA 40 years ago, when all their published platitudes about "justice this" and "justice that" invariably omitted any consideration of the injustice of affirmative action, state economic bullying, and overt hostility to the human right of armed self defense. Not interested in membership in a club of people who hate me and my rights.
Just keep coming up with new ways to violate the First Amendment, huh?
OK, if you insist.
Let me guess: a Biden voter, right?
Hating on the ABA? In 2025? This feels like a 2005-2015 kind of thing. FTC is way behind the times. The cool thing now is to say your own agency is entirely unconstitutional or be openly corrupt in favor of Eric Adams.
If Ferguson wants to get ahead on reactionary cred, he’s going to need to, idk, use natural law theory to ban all Christians from the credit card industry because it constitutes usury.
MAGA seeks to shut out the impure from power, and thus will politicize everything
MAGA seeks to shut out the impure from power, and thus will politicize everything
Next thing you know, they'll be faceting about saying this or that person should be removed from ballots, or offices. Oh, wait. That's already happening in respose-in-kind.
I say to both sides, stop please. And certainly do not escalate.
But the theory predicts power mongers don't listen as four years down the road might as well be four centuries. Our perfectly legal, we order you to believe, portfolios should be way up at that point, worst case scenario.
Talk about being behind the times, my people have controlled banking for the last 2,000 years
"And I fully expect the Department of Education to revoke the ABA's accreditation power."
I don't think it will stop there.
Can a state require a US Attorney to have a state law license? States can NOT require MDs working for the VA to have a state MD license -- because of problems the VA now does, but states couldn't.
What's to prevent the Feds from sending paralegals into court?
Federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 530B, although I’m not sure whether we still care about that any more.
Note that prior to the enactment of 530B in 1998, when I was a young (or maybe middle-aged) lawyer, the DOJ did not consider itself bound by certain ethical rules. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3510&context=vlr
Interesting how we care more about the practice of law than medicine...
What
Federal law requires a state-issued law license but not a state issued medical license. Bizarre...
Dear Josh
Not sure I understand what's going on here. What are "political appointees" in this context ?
If the targets are "at will" employees, can he just go ahead and fire them if he doesn't trust them ? How would them resigning their ABA membership make them more trustworthy ? Making non membership of the ABA a requirement simply means that the evilest least trustworthy progs and trial lawyer c***suckers will operate under the radar.
If the objective is to purge the FTC of evildoers, he should do it more subtly. Just fire the ones he doesn't like, but keep a few ABA members on in unimportant roles, plus fire a few FedSoc members (if any such exist in the FTC) so that your algorithm is harder to spot.
Or is the objective to create a disciplinary offense, because they're not "at will" ?
"Puzzed"
Pennsylvania
The ABA should have appointed Josh Blackman as its political director, when it had the chance.
I get that, for example, Biden was unlikely to appoint an NRA member to the Gun Violence Solutions Board[1]. He was going to appoint simpatico people, and is unlikely to find those among the NRA membership, fair enough. But I think it's bad politics to announce - or even have - litmus tests. He should at least pretend he'd appoint an NRA member if the right one came along.
[1]yes, I made that up
First Amendment lawsuit to be filed in 3… 2… 1…
That may be the intent.
What is the word used to describe discovery?
In this instance? I'd be torn between "stupid" and "irrelevant."
What “discovery” does Dr Ed think even applies here? Does he ignorantly think the ABA (which would not be a party in the first place) is going to have to produce stuff, and somehow what it produces is going to be interesting in some way?
The only relevant discovery would be internal Trump administration communications about how this policy came about, and presumably all that info would be FOIA-able anyway.
The ABA couldn't be countersued?
This is a clear 1A freedom of associating violation. The government can't ban people from joining organizations, not even their appointees.
It seems so blatantly unconstitutional that it reads like an Onion piece. "Henceforth, new appointees must surrender their membership in the NRA, or will not renew membership when it expires." Legal? (Obviously not.) Or, "New appointess must resign from membership in the ACLU, or in the Democratic Party, etc." Legal? (Unless I am totally missing the right to freely associate; seems Black Letter Law unconstitutional.
Of course, this is Blackman, so the working assumption we all have for all of this posts is, "He's pulling this shit out of his ass, so maybe we should calm down for now."
I don't think there is any problem with this for political appointees.
What's the real difference between a Republican administration saying no Democrats need apply for political appointments, and no ABA, or vice versa, and this.
The ABA does take political and ideological positions.
For that matter it would probably be a very short list of Biden or Obama appontees that were officers in the Federalist Society, Although rumor is Justice Kagen loves the Federalist Society.
Kaz,
I suspect that at least one issue is that, after being hired, you are being forced to disassociate yourself from a perfectly legal organization. Be that the NRA, or the Democratic Party, or the ACLU, or a Jewish synagogue, or a Catholic charity.
1. Would it be legal for me to fire you (someone already working for me), if you did not quit that organization? Quit that religion? Or, force you to not renew your membership in that group, when came the normal time to renew?
2. If your answer to 1 was, "Yes, it would be legal to force me to do that.", then; do you think it is moral or ethical to force you to do that?
Leaving aside the law on which I have nothing to say, the ethics of the matter depends on the circumstances.
Obviously when an existing organisation comes under new management long standing employees must accept that some things may change. Gnarled old white males may find that new management prefers fresh young alphabet people. Which may get you fired as surplus to requirements or demoted. Tough but hardly unethical.
A job is not a job for life unless it says so on the tin. One would prefer new management give folk time to adjust. The idea that you don’t renew seems to give you time to decide whether your ABA membership is more important to you than your job. Or the other way round.
I always feel that this sort of question is best addressed by skipping past things like The Association of Very Kind and Moderate Folk (AVKMF) and focussing on the NSDAP. Gets to the nub quicker.
This is a government job, which is bound to 1A.
moi : Leaving aside the law on which I have nothing to say
Molly : This is a government job, which is bound to 1A
Nuff said.
Fine. But their employer doesn’t have to pay for their dues, or give them time off the participate in their activities. And that could be almost as bad.
These are political appointees, which are bound to "the politician appointing you likes you", and not much more.
> Obviously when an existing organisation comes under new management long standing employees must accept that some things may change. Gnarled old white males may find that new management prefers fresh young alphabet people. Which may get you fired as surplus to requirements or demoted. Tough but hardly unethical.
Call me old fashioned, but, legalities aside, hiring and firing on the grounds of race or sex strikes me as highly unethical.
And the Democratic party agreed with you about that for approximately 1036 days.
Would that include the Klu Klux Klan, Operation Rescue, or Hamas?
I fully agree that an accreditation body like the ABA needs to reflect viewpoint diversity and, like universities, ought not to take political stances on matters unrelated to its purpose. And I have no problem removing the ABA's accreditation power if it fails to do that.
But telling people that they can't join an organization, or hold a leadership position in an organization, or even attend its events is an outrageous First Amendment violation, and it's not even close.
Sure, maybe some of the 1st Amdt claims against the Trump Administration may succeed. But the ABA is not clear from this. But the loss of accreditation power and dues may ultimately hurt more.
ABA membership has long skewed significantly towards those whose employers paid for their membership. The cost is steep for what you get, and as a result, those who pay for their membership out of their own pockets very often eschew membership. This means that the membership skews towards large firms and large employers. Solos and members of small firms seem to rarely belong. Heck, when I was in a firm of 300, membership was light, and non-existent in firms of 10-20. And note that this isn’t unique to law - I had a leadership role in the national part of an international engineering society, and as services dwindled, and politics went leftwards, membership started skewing significantly in the same direction - in that case, towards employees of huge companies and academics from large research universities. A USG wide ban on paying for memberships would likely take a big bite out of ABA dues. Moreover, it is likely to be emulated by a number of more conservative states.
Their accreditation power loss would have interesting effects. The ABA enjoys massive advantages from it. A large number of states appear to have a two tier admission policy to their state bars. For example, in at least one state I practiced in, they allowed ABA accredited LS grads to immediately sit for their bar exams. Everyone else had to practice law for a period of time (e.g. 7 years in several) before being eligible for state bar admission. In the states I practiced in, that mostly meant grads of CA (but not ABA) accredited law schools. How would revocation of the ABA accrediting power affect this? It should be interesting.
This is a stupid conflict you're laying out. Pure scalp taking, no other point.
You are also a 2020 truther. Didn't know you were also an attorney. That's pretty tragic.
Gaslighto is scared.
Gaslighto is very scared.
Gaslighto sees the sand washing out underneath his feet.
The same thing is true of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and most MDs do *not* belong to the AMA.
ABA membership has long skewed significantly towards those whose employers paid for their membership.
This surely has little to do with the politics of the organization, and more to do with people wanting to spend money on things that benefit them personally. I'd bet good money that folks who make "optional" donations to, say, the California bar for historical purposes or what not are generally getting reimbursed by employers.
Good Luck! The AMA turned into Al-Kaida in Scrubs 30 years ago, telling Pediatricians to ask kids if their parents had guns or had talked to them about oral sex, used to consider joining as a Goof, but it’s a chunk of change, and with Dr Richard/Rachel Levine being given a powerful cabinet position with Sleepy Joe would anyone get the satire?
Frank
It didn't have to end this way. The ABA could have arrested its decline. Instead, it was captured by leftist groups, and tied itself to the DEI mast.
Josh,
If you are going to use a mythological allusion, get it right. Odysseus tied himself to the mast to prevent being lured by the sirens. The phrase has nothing to do with sticking to a policy in the face of criticism, or whatever you have in mind.
Thirty seconds of Google time would have stopped you from making this ignorant error.
FWIW, my 30 seconds of googling 🙂 seems to say the strict mythological interpretation isn't universal:
"From the practice of tying oneself to the mast of a sailing ship in rough weather so as not to be swept overboard. " (with examples from literature)
"To continue in a course of action even when facing great difficulties and likely disaster"
FWIW, only two of the ten results on the first page of my search were the version from Homer.
I agree -- it was usually women and children tied to the mast so they wouldn't wash overboard.
I *knew* the reference wasn't from Homer -- it was Longfellow's _The Wreck of the Hesperus_ based on the 1839 Blizzard. For those of you worshiping the goddess carbon, that was 1839...
"He wrapped her warm in his seaman's coat
Against the stinging blast;
He cut a rope from a broken spar,
And bound her to the mast."
https://allpoetry.com/The-Wreck-Of-The-Hesperus
I suspect that the correct nautical metaphor that the author should be using is "nailed his colors to the mast."
Kinda hard to do that in Texas -- 160 years is a record for them.
I am surprised.
I am willing to believe that ABA has its bias, but having a government department refusing to have a Political Appointment to "participating in or attending ABA events, or renewing any existing ABA memberships." seems to be similar to a government restriction of speech and thought that I would have thought you and the legal system would have opposed. I do understand that as an individual judgement stronger evidence could be used as an indication, but not as a Black Lining absolute condition. As an individual, I might Join and Attend either ABA or REASON to learn about their positions, etc. and having either be as total government censorship, seems to be wrong?
You might join the Klan for similar reasons, but don't put it on your CV.
I'm about as anti-identity politics as they come, but to compare the ABA -- whatever it faults -- to the Klan is ridiculous, and you know it.