The American Bar Association is on the verge of a major shift in how it structures diversity within its leadership, floating a proposal that ditches demographic set-asides in favor of ideology-driven inclusion.
Currently, five seats on the ABA’s Board of Governors are guaranteed for individuals who identify as women, LGBTQ+, persons with disabilities, or members of racial or ethnic minorities. Under the proposed revision, those identity-linked guarantees would disappear. In their place: three board seats reserved for lawyers who *champion* diversity, equity, and inclusion — regardless of their own background.
It’s a notable pivot — from who you are to what you stand for.
The change is bundled into a broader plan to shrink the governing board from 43 to 32 members, part of what the ABA describes as a structural downsizing meant to increase efficiency and respond to a years-long membership slide. The ABA has lost nearly 43% of its members since 2015, dropping from almost 400,000 to just over 227,000 in 2024.
Though the reform committee didn’t name politics directly, the backdrop is hard to ignore. The ABA has been increasingly in the crosshairs of Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. In April, Trump threatened to strip the organization of its coveted role as the accreditor of U.S. law schools — targeting its requirements that law schools show active commitments to diversity in recruitment and admissions. That rule is now frozen until August 2026.
Meanwhile, conservative legal groups have launched formal challenges to the ABA’s diversity-focused hiring initiatives, accusing them of illegal bias against non-minority applicants.
The proposed revision to board representation stops short of a full retreat — instead recasting inclusion as a principle rather than a quota. Future candidates would be evaluated on their “lived experience, professional work, involvement in initiatives, or obstacles overcome and resilience developed.”
The ABA’s House of Delegates is set to debate and vote on the measure during its August 11–12 meeting. Until then, the organization is staying tight-lipped on the rationale behind the proposed shift.
