The American Bar Association’s Discriminatory Continuing Legal Education “Diversity” Policy

In this case, the Florida Bar’s Business Law Section claims to be a private entity because of the structure of the Florida Bar, and so does the ABA.34 As a general rule, they are free to adopt any policies they wish without wor- rying about potential constitutional violations.35 Even though the Florida Supreme Court deftly avoided the question of whether state action exists when the Florida Bar ap. [...] Supreme Court stated, “The short of the matter is that from the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until the present, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference, includes action of state courts and state judicial officials.”42 Because the “restrictions on the right of occupancy of the sort sought to be created by. [...] Supreme Court found it irrelevant that the “pattern of discrimination” was “defined initially by the terms of a private agree- ment.”44 Consequently, the housing covenant could not be enforced by the judicial branch of government and still remain consistent with the Constitution.45 The same problems could exist when the Florida Bar attempted to use the power of the state to accept and enforce cert. [...] When a state is being asked to enforce or ratify an action that would “deny rights subject to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the obligation of [courts] to enforce the constitutional commands” rather than to enforce or ratify the constitutionally questionable actions.46 First “Revised” ABA Policy Solved None of These Problems While the ABA contends that its original policy was no. [...] This is especially important in light of the fact that the ABA is ordering the creation of a subcommittee, which “will include representatives from… the [ABA’s] Diversity and Inclusion Center” and “shall monitor the Asso- ciation’s CLE programming to ensure that Association entities conduct LEGAL MEMORANDUM | No.