The Judicial Conference of the United States is reportedly considering a measure that would prohibit federal judges from maintaining membership in the Federalist Society. The rationale behind this potential restriction, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, stems from a belief within the Judicial Conference that the organization is excessively political.
Should the Judicial Conference proceed with banning judges’ membership in the Federalist Society, the necessity of applying the same prohibition to other legal organizations, particularly the American Bar Association (ABA), becomes a critical consideration. The Federalist Society, by contrast, is known for its policy of not taking official positions on legal or political issues. The ABA, however, frequently engages in advocacy, offering opinions on numerous issues and filing amicus curiae briefs before the Supreme Court. Observers have noted that the ABA’s stances often exhibit a consistent liberal or left-leaning political perspective.
Extending this principle of neutrality would also necessitate restricting judicial membership in various “affinity bar associations.” Organizations such as the National Hispanic Bar Association, the National Bar Association (comprised predominantly of African American lawyers), and the National Association of Women Lawyers routinely take public stands on controversial issues and submit amicus briefs to courts. The Federalist Society, conversely, has historically maintained a policy of non-involvement in such political and legal advocacy.
