The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments in a historic case challenging the scope of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, a legal debate simmering for over a century. At the center of the pre-hearing discourse is not just the constitutional question itself, but the controversial involvement of the American Bar Association, which has filed an amicus brief firmly supporting automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
The ABA's brief, signed by President Michele Behnke, argues the matter is settled law and warns of dire consequences should the Court rule otherwise. However, this position has drawn sharp criticism for its perceived partisanship and failure to represent the diverse views within the legal profession. The organization, which now represents only about 17% of U.S. lawyers, has seen its membership plummet from 400,000 in 2015 to roughly 227,000 today.
A Partisan Trajectory
Critics trace the ABA's shift from a neutral professional body to a partisan advocate to a pivotal 1990 decision, when it abandoned its neutral stance to adopt a position supporting abortion rights. This move, which fundamentally altered the organization's culture, was later contradicted by the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Since then, the ABA has increasingly aligned itself with liberal and Democratic Party positions, a trend that accelerated during the Trump administration. "The ABA has become fully captive to partisans who use the organization to support liberal and often Democratic Party positions," the original analysis noted, resulting in alienating a significant portion of its potential membership.
The Core Constitutional Debate
The legal dispute hinges on the interpretation of six words in the Fourteenth Amendment: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Proponents of restricting birthright citizenship argue this phrase was intentionally added to limit citizenship to children of citizens and legal residents fully under U.S. jurisdiction, not those briefly present or residing illegally. Most European nations reject birthright citizenship, making the United States an outlier.
The ABA's brief dismisses this historical debate, declaring the language clear and resolved. Yet, as the case reaches the nation's highest court, the association's uncompromising stance has become a secondary controversy, highlighting its diminished role as a representative of the bar.
Institutional Consequences
The ABA's declining influence mirrors a broader trend affecting other once-neutral institutions. Academia and mainstream media have similarly seen public trust erode as they are perceived to prioritize advocacy over objectivity. "All three of these groups have one thing in common beyond their liberal ideological bias and advocacy: They are all increasingly unpopular," the analysis observed.
Faced with an ABA that continues to double down on controversial positions, several states are reconsidering its traditional role in bar admissions and oversight. The organization's leadership, including President Behnke—who also serves on boards for the University of Wisconsin Law School and its foundation—appears insulated from these consequences, continuing to receive accolades within ideological echo chambers.
The birthright citizenship case presents a monumental constitutional question. Yet, regardless of the Supreme Court's eventual ruling, the American Bar Association's involvement has underscored its own institutional crisis. No longer speaking for most lawyers, and increasingly viewed as a partisan actor, the ABA faces a future where its pronouncements may carry little weight beyond its dwindling membership, a fate sealed not by a judicial decision, but by its own political choices.
