This cannot be constitutional. The idea that the American Bar Association cannot enjoy the participation of federal officials in events but the Federalist Society can is absurd.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Perhaps the GOP could consider not breaking the law, or violating the constitution, or nominating unqualified hacks to the judiciary if they don’t want to feel targeted by the ABA.
Yes, but that’s why I phrased my view that it’s an unconstitutional injury to the ABA not necessarily a free speech issue for appointees. That I don’t know about.
But isn’t it government speech? Can’t the government pick and choose which events it sends top brass to, even on the basis of the viewpoint of the sponsoring organization?
I think you’re being too charitable. He could’ve easily said “in an official capacity.” But I read the first paragraph’s penultimate sentence as a blanket prohibition because the last sentence is limited to government activities.
That could be a pretty big impact, though. Many agencies subsidize their lawyers' CLE, and the ABA admin law conference usually has tons of gov lawyers attending. Saying the agency won't pay any more if the CLE is hosted or sponsored by the ABA is a big deal.
And it could be read to mean they won't even grant paid time off to attend, employees would have to use annual leave (vacation, basically) to go to a conference.
It can pick and choose which events it sends top brass to; it cannot pick and choose which normative associations it permits its top brass to renew their memberships to, short of declaring them much more dangerous organizations than simply 'the wrong political party'.
I’m interested in the theory here because that still seems like government speech. They’re saying the ABA sucks and they’re saying they won’t let political appointees go to it and won’t spend money on it. Which of those isn’t government speech?
What is the government doing engaging in petty revenge BS because the ABA reminded lawyers of their professional ethics at a time of national crisis? Don't they have any work to do?
This is what I want to know. Yesterday Elon Lied, standing right in the Oval Office saying FEMA was getting millions and paying New York City Hotels DOUBLE the room rate to house undocumented immigrants. Actually FEMA administered the funds on behalf of a Federal LAW passed by Congress
and signed by Biden, and the room rate was $12.50 a night.
What I want to know is the statement that the ABA is getting MILLIONS in FTC funds. I want to know the truth about that since we saw last night how they lie, lie, lie.
Ah yes, you can always count on the federalist society to take a firm and consistent stand on principle. Guys? Guys? Why are you laughing at me? Stop pointing!
The idea of government as a neutral good for all Americas is not one shared by Trump and his ilk. I observed during the first Trump admin that he was unfit because he could not conceive of a separation between personal and national interests, and now it seems Trump and the government are the same.
Someone should really tell these asshats they aren’t on Reddit. Official communications from federal agencies shouldn’t read like butthurt Bob got pissed at downvotes.
Golly. I spent a whole summer as an ABA Antitrust Section Steiger Fellow, and somehow entirely missed that it was some sort of leftist indoctrination plot. (Does that mean it's working?)
I'm sure a similar letter is being drafted (if not already sent) covering the entire DOJ. What did the ABA expect after explicitly advocating for the rule of law? The nerve.
So, first of all, right of free association, anyone?
Secondly, here is a list of the current political appointees to the FTC be affected by this order. There are five of them, including the chair of the FTC who wrote the memo:
The law constituting the FTC requires that there be no more than three commissioners from any one political party. (That is where I'd have thought Trump would challenge it.)
The two Democrats are Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter (who once chaired the FTC). Let's see what this is really aimed at.
This is what the order actually does. The rest is political agitprop. So it applies to political appointees who are below the rank of Commissioner but not career staff. Who are these people?
Returning to this, it looks like we're looking at about twelve to twenty people, it's a bit difficult to get the information easily. Department heads, regional office chiefs, folks like that. All likely to be lawyers.
I think prohibiting them from joining the ABA if they want is a very big deal.
I think prohibiting them from joining the ABA because the chairman of the Commission disagrees with some of the ABA's political statements is definitionally viewpoint discrimination, and the memo reeks of it [viewpoint discrimination].
This is the government ASKING to be sued. BEGGING to be sued.
Love that it's just riddled with non-sequitur references to whatever has been rattling around in their brain for the last 30 seconds. DEI, USAID, the equal rights amendment, you name it.
Tick tock, rule of law. I revered you so, I still do. ABA still has a lot of power to have this “directive” come out. Don’t stop wielding that power and upholding the rule of law.
I think the (stupid) argument is that FTC antitrust regulators are cozying up with liberal/socialist ABA folks and therefore not likely to enforce the law in a way the president likes.
As an ABA member who likes competition policy and might want to go to an event with an FTC member on the panel, would I have standing to challenge this?
the Constitution is dead Anthony, fascists literally don't care about following the law. do you get it yet? they have the power, they can do whatever they feel like trying on
Comments
The fundings/official participation is permissible to restrict as a formal policy, sure.
What I want to know is the statement that the ABA is getting MILLIONS in FTC funds. I want to know the truth about that since we saw last night how they lie, lie, lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/opinion/trump-fourth-of-july.html
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/ftc-chairman-ferguson-announces-new-policy-regarding-american-bar-association
But yes, this is all absurd theater.
Secondly, here is a list of the current political appointees to the FTC be affected by this order. There are five of them, including the chair of the FTC who wrote the memo:
The two Democrats are Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter (who once chaired the FTC). Let's see what this is really aimed at.
I think prohibiting them from joining the ABA if they want is a very big deal.
This is the government ASKING to be sued. BEGGING to be sued.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap
ABA is a bad influence and needs to be punished.
A diverse population of lawyers.