American Bar Association condemns the use of government power to threaten political opponents

The American Bar Association (ABA) has waded into a politically charged dispute over Justice Department independence, releasing a statement condemning the use of government power to threaten political opponents and officials “who were doing their job.” The move underscored the organization’s increasingly visible advocacy role, reported JURISTnews.

In the statement, the national professional organization for lawyers in the US wrote:

Using government power to threaten people and groups on political grounds is antithetical to our system of justice and the rule of law. Intimidating a political opponent, a lawyer or law enforcement official who was doing their job, an organization that pursued missions not favored by the president, state attorneys general and even members of Congress is unacceptable. Evidence, not ideology, should always be the north star.

Additionally, ABA noted that decisions of prosecutors must be free from political influence to avoid the erosion of public trust in the judicial and political system. The association reiterated that 15 years ago, a policy was passed concerning the political interests of prosecutors and other government lawyers.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, commonly known as the Appointments Clause, grants the President the authority to “nominate” with the advice of the Senate, “Officers of the United States,” including federal prosecutors. This provision limits undue political influence over the justice system by requiring the Senate’s confirmation role in preventing partisan appointments to the judicial system.

In addition to appointments, however, the threat of utilizing the already-appointed officials is imminent as indicated by the ABA statement. In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), the Supreme Court argued that the Attorney General is not a representative of an “ordinary party to a controversy,” but of a “sovereign whose obligation to govern impartially,” and whose prosecution may have earnestness and vigor, but no liberty to strike unfairly.

Earlier this month, former FBI director James Comey was indicted on making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. According to Comey, the DOJ is politically attacking him for his stances against President Donald Trump.

The politically charged statement highlighted the ABA’s increasingly visible advocacy role at a time when several Republican-led states are questioning whether the organization should continue overseeing law school accreditation. Texas on Friday became the first state to announce it would end that arrangement, while Florida has cited concerns about the “ABA’s active political engagement” in launching its own review.

The ABA is the nation’s largest voluntary legal network, representing more than 400,000 lawyers. It has served as the sole federally recognized accreditor of American law schools since 1952. Many states have traditionally required graduation from an ABA-accredited law school as a prerequisite for bar admission, making the organization’s approval essential for most law schools. But the ABA serves functions beyond academia as well, including in vocally advocating for the legal profession and advancing the rule of law.

To read more CLICK HERE