The American Bar Association’s recent statement proclaims the timeless principle that evidence, not ideology, should guide the Department of Justice. It condemns the use of government power to threaten political opponents, lawyers, and organizations disfavored by those in power. On paper, it reads like a civics-class reminder of everything Americans are supposed to trust about the rule of law.
But for anyone paying attention, the problem is obvious: the ABA rarely holds itself—or the system it claims to represent—to these same standards. The words sound noble. The practice looks selective. And that’s what makes this statement feel less like an impartial defense of justice and more like another entry in the ABA’s long history of political positioning dressed up as neutrality.
What the ABA Said—and What It Didn’t
The ABA frames its concern around the Department of Justice allegedly succumbing to political influence. It highlights threats aimed at political opponents, attorneys, law enforcement officials, and disfavored organizations.
That framing is not wrong. The abuse of prosecutorial power to intimidate or punish is a serious threat. But the glaring omission is acknowledgment that this problem is systemic, bipartisan, and decades in the making.
Where was the ABA when:
- The IRS targeted conservative nonprofits during the Obama years?
- Lawyers and law firms faced campaigns to be fired or boycotted for representing Guantánamo detainees, immigration clients, or unpopular defendants?
- Federal agencies coordinated with social media companies to suppress speech later judged to be lawful?
- Pretrial gag orders, questionable venue choices, and years-long investigations were used not only against one former president but against activists, journalists, and whistleblowers across the spectrum?
If the ABA really means it, its defense of “evidence over ideology” should apply in all of those cases. Instead, its public voice tends to grow loud only when it aligns with fashionable outrage.
A Pattern of Selective Outrage
The ABA has built a reputation for weighing in when the issue is high-profile and the narrative already leans a certain way. Consider:
- Judicial Ratings and Bias
Trump-era nominees were disproportionately rated “not qualified,” often on grounds unrelated to technical competence but instead tied to ideological alignment. At the same time, the ABA continued to backstop progressive judicial picks with glowing endorsements, brushing aside comparable concerns. - Policy Activism via Accreditation
Law schools accredited by the ABA must meet sprawling “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mandates that function as ideological litmus tests. Whether or not one supports DEI, it is impossible to square such mandates with the claim of political neutrality. - Funding Conflicts
The ABA accepts millions in federal grants for programs ranging from domestic violence prevention to international development. Yet the same organization lobbies and litigates against the government that funds it. That isn’t independence—it’s dependency. And it colors every public statement with the suspicion that the real battle is over dollars, not principles.
The Silence Where It Hurts Most: Ordinary Families and Citizens
The ABA is quick to defend its institutional prestige. But when it comes to defending ordinary Americans crushed by broken systems, it too often whispers.
- Family Courts
Parents across the country face wrongful contempt charges, excessive fines, or even jail time for failing to meet impossible court orders. Disabled parents are stripped of custody without accommodations guaranteed under federal law. False accusations are weaponized with little consequence. Yet while advocacy groups and investigative reporters shine a light on these abuses, the ABA mostly offers training manuals and case summaries. - ADA Failures in Courts
Courts are legally bound to accommodate disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In practice, parents with PTSD, ADHD, or hearing impairments often get denied accommodations, their motions ignored without explanation, leaving them unable to defend themselves. The ABA knows this. It publishes best-practice papers. But it rarely spends political capital pushing judges or legislatures to actually enforce compliance. - Civil Liberties for the Unpopular
When student groups lose recognition for their beliefs, when lawyers are punished for representing politically disfavored clients, when whistleblowers are silenced—the ABA is slow to defend. The instinct is to protect institutions first, citizens second.
In each case, the principle at stake is exactly what the ABA claims to champion: neutrality, independence, evidence over ideology. And in each case, the silence speaks louder than the slogans.
Weaponization Isn’t About Who Holds the Sword
The ABA’s statement makes a valid point: when political leaders direct the DOJ to punish enemies, the system is at risk. But the principle doesn’t depend on who is in office.
- Gag orders are wrong whether they silence Trump, a journalist, or a local activist.
- Threats to lawyers are wrong whether they target a firm defending immigration clients or one representing conservative nonprofits.
- DOJ favoritism is wrong whether it shields progressive causes from scrutiny or magnifies conservative causes into criminal cases.
If the ABA is serious, it must be consistent. Anything less is not a defense of justice; it’s just another partisan skirmish cloaked in legal language.
What a Truly Independent ABA Would Do Tomorrow
If the ABA wants its “evidence, not ideology” mantra to be believed, it needs to reform itself as much as it critiques others.
- Neutrality Pledge
Require cross-ideological supermajorities before the ABA takes an official stance on controversial issues. No more using the ABA seal to amplify one side of a political fight. - Financial Transparency
Publish a real-time dashboard of every federal grant, subgrant, and program it runs. Let the public see exactly how dependent the ABA is on government funding. - Concrete Due Process Protections
Develop model rules requiring written rulings on ADA accommodation requests, automatic fee-shifting for discovery abuse, and penalties for judge-shopping. Push states to adopt them. - Defend Civil Liberties Consistently
Create a standing “Civil Liberties Defense Unit” that files amicus briefs anytime speech, association, or legal representation rights are threatened—without filtering cases through ideology. - End Ideological Accreditation Mandates
Law school accreditation should focus on competence, not compel institutions to conform to particular social policies. A professional bar should not be an ideological enforcer.
Bottom Line
The ABA’s statement sounds good on paper: impartial justice, free from political influence, guided by evidence instead of ideology. But until the organization holds itself to those same standards—and proves it will defend due process and equal treatment for all Americans—it remains what many already see it as: a political actor wearing the costume of neutrality.
“Evidence, not ideology” is the right north star. The real question is whether the ABA is willing to sail by it—or whether it prefers to keep navigating by the winds of politics.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
