America First Legal, a Trump-aligned legal organization co-founded by senior White House advisor Stephen Miller, released a report Wednesday accusing the American Bar Association of liberal bias in its amicus brief program over the past decade.
The report, which scanned amicus briefs filed between April 2016 and February 2026, found that 70 of 87 total briefs 'favored a liberal or progressive outcome,' according to the group. The ABA did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the allegations.
What the Right Is Saying
America First Legal President Gene Hamilton said the data demonstrates the ABA has abandoned neutrality. 'More than four in five briefs push a progressive agenda, immigration advocacy has become the program's dominant focus, and the organization has not once — in ten years and across two Trump administrations — filed a brief that could be characterized as supportive of a conservative legal position,' Hamilton stated.
The report specifically cited amicus briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors, and the Texas heartbeat law as examples of advocacy that AFL argues falls outside the ABA's stated mission. 'The ABA is not a neutral arbiter and should be treated no differently than any other liberal advocacy group,' Hamilton said.
The Trump administration has taken concrete steps in response to these concerns. In February 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson prohibited political appointees from holding leadership roles in the ABA or renewing memberships. In May 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the ABA that the DOJ would end its traditional partnership on judicial nominee vetting, citing 'refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process.' In April 2025, Trump signed an executive order targeting the ABA and other accrediting groups.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive legal scholars and ABA supporters have defended the organization as a professional standards body that has long supported rule-of-law principles. Critics of the AFL report argue that characterizing the ABA's positions as 'far-left' conflates mainstream legal ethics with partisan advocacy.
The ABA, founded in 1878, is the largest voluntary bar association in the world with roughly 170,000 members. The organization has historically taken positions on issues including criminal justice reform, voting rights, and immigration that some conservatives view as progressive but which the ABA frames as core to the legal profession's ethical obligations.
The group's Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs requires that all filings 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,' as noted in the AFL press release.
What the Numbers Show
The AFL audit identified 87 total amicus briefs filed between April 2016 and February 2026. Of these, 70 briefs 'favored a liberal or progressive outcome,' while none were classified as 'conservative-aligned.' The remaining 17 briefs covered what AFL described as neutral issues, including patent law cases.
In all six cases involving Trump or Trump officials where the ABA filed an amicus brief, the organization argued against the president's position. The cases touched on immigration, reproductive rights, and executive authority.
The ABA's membership includes approximately 170,000 lawyers, making it the premier professional association for the legal sector. The organization has accredited law schools since 1952 and plays a role in vetting judicial nominees through its rating system.
The Bottom Line
The debate over the ABA's political orientation reflects broader tensions between the legal profession and the Trump administration's efforts to reshape federal oversight of institutions it views as biased. The administration has moved to sever relationships with the ABA on judicial vetting and restrict political appointees' involvement with the group.
The ABA has not publicly responded to the latest allegations, and independent verification of AFL's methodology was not immediately available. Legal observers say the conflict raises questions about the role of professional associations in a politically divided era and whether accreditation bodies should take policy positions at all. Future court cases involving the ABA's amicus filings will likely keep this controversy in focus.