Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) has learned from the best how to dismantle the Left’s main talking points. All it takes is some staff work, research, and letting these people speak. Give them enough rope, and you know what happens next. Gill is the chair of the task force charged with uncovering institutional abuses and defending our constitutional rights. He held a hearing in which he outmaneuvered the American Bar Association President, Michelle A. Behnke, over the Left’s DEI agenda regarding the Supreme Court. Behnke stuck to the script, saying that the ABA doesn’t support racial quotas, which Gill wasn’t convinced of. He asked if the ABA would oppose the nomination of a third black Supreme Court justice, as they have said the third branch should reflect America’s racial demographics.
The American Bar Association says that the Supreme Court should reflect America's racial demographic makeup.
— Brandon Gill (@realBrandonGill) July 22, 2026
I asked the ABA's President if that means the Senate should refuse to confirm a third black Supreme Court justice. pic.twitter.com/gWkGL56lzY
No, the Court should be comprised of the best jurists in the land.
The main point, and the reason for Behnke’s appearance, was the inclusion of DEI in the ABA’s accreditation criteria for law schools (via Fox News):
The task force has laid out the goal of exploring "how Congress can help permanently eliminate DEI policies within American institutions, including the legal profession and academy."
The ABA’s accreditation system gives it considerable influence over legal education. Its Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is the only accreditor of Juris Doctor programs recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, and graduation from an ABA-approved law school is the standard path to taking the bar exam in most states.
In the hearing, Behnke is expected to argue that the council operates independently of the broader ABA, a distinction she made clear in a June 1 statement.
Despite the council's decision in May to repeal certain diversity and inclusion standards for law schools, Behnke said the ABA still has an "unwavering" commitment to DEI, comments that Gill and other committee members are likely to scrutinize.
[…]
However, even before Trump returned to the White House last January, the ABA accreditation council was already considering revising Standard 206 of the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. A November 2024 revision called for removing sections including a requirement for law schools to "demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity."
Yeah, that doesn’t matter—DEI isn’t supposed to be part of college campus life, but it is, it’s just under a different name.
If you read Gill’s opening remarks before the hearing yesterday, you could tell he was going to dismiss anyone who tried to defend the illiberal, nonsensical views the Left sees as critical to our nation’s well-being or whatever.
The rule of law and equal access to justice for Americans are bedrock principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Access to our legal system and the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans as a result of the rule of law are fundamental components of the success of our Nation as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
So it should concern all Americans that these principles are eroded by discriminatory DEI practices, and concern them even more that these DEI policies have been promoted by attorneys with the legal training to know better.
The ABA as an institution plays an outsized role in American law and the legal profession.
Ever since it was founded in 1878, the ABA has grown to be the entity that sets the accreditation standards for American Law Schools.
Since 1952 the ABA has been recognized by the federal government as the only law school accreditor.
Though State Supreme Courts have power to regulate the conduct of legal professionals within those states, many states also recognize the ABA as the accreditor for their law schools.
Furthermore, the ABA evaluates judicial nominees, promulgates model rules of professional conduct for attorneys, and speaks, for many people, as a voice for attorneys in the United States.
So, what has the ABA done with this impressive accumulation of power and prestige?
Unfortunately, it appears that the ABA, ideologically captured by radical leftists, has continuously pursued discriminatory DEI practices.
This included requiring law schools to consider race as a factor for admissions and to elevate racial discrimination over merit in order to “diversify” the profession.
This wasn’t done in secret. The ABA published an accreditation standard to enforce it, Standard 206.
And the implementing guidance for Standard 206 says that even if those DEI practices are illegal under a constitutional provision or statute, that illegality is quote “not a justification for a school’s noncompliance with Standard 206.” End quote.
Even after the Supreme Court held in 2023 that race-based admissions practices violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the ABA did not voluntarily reverse course.
It doubled down and told law schools it would continue to enforce its DEI standards in the accreditation process.
Through accreditation Standard 206 and Standard 303(c), the ABA used its institutional power to bully law schools to also require mandatory DEI related courses in addition to instituting race-based policies in admissions.
As we heard from witnesses during our hearing on July 14, discriminatory DEI policies, in addition to being illegal, seek to pit Americans against one another on account of their immutable characteristics, and, at their core, fundamentally reject the American ideal of equal justice and of achieving success based on one’s merit.
The ABA—an organization made up of attorneys who should know better—persisted in promoting DEI practices even though race-based admissions, forced speech, and considering race in employment decisions clearly violate the law.
These practices violate federal civil rights statutes passed by Congress more than 60 years ago in addition to violating the U.S. Constitution.
It wasn’t until President Trump issued executive orders and threatened the ABA’s accreditation monopoly at the federal level that the ABA begrudgingly started to assess whether to get rid of these DEI requirements.
Enforcement of Standard 206 on DEI in admissions is currently suspended, and although the ABA Standards Committee recently recommended that it be repealed, it received numerous comments still supporting keeping DEI in full force, and the full repeal has not yet taken effect.
Standard 303(c) on DEI related mandatory coursework remains in force. And although the Accreditation Committee is reviewing that standard as well, no final decision has been made.
Meanwhile, the ABA devotes entire pages on its public-facing website to promoting DEI in the legal profession, leaving me skeptical that it has learned the error of its ways and will make a clean break from racist DEI policies.
ABA President Behnke even stated in February of this year when speaking to the ABA Delegates that, “we will not abandon our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Given this reality, it’s no surprise that many states like Florida, Texas, Alabama and Tennessee are moving away, or considering moving away, from the traditional monopoly in law school accreditations exercised by the ABA.
Our purpose today is to examine the role and future of an institution like the ABA in law school accreditation and in the legal profession in our country.
The harm that DEI has caused to the legal profession and to Americans who deserve equal access to justice and competent representation from their legal professionals is extensive.
We must ensure a course of action that will restore merit and integrity to American law and the legal profession.