TaxProf Blog

Following up on my previous post, ABA Files Suit Against DOJ's Funding Cuts That Forced Layoffs Of 300 Employees:  American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-1263 (D.D.C. May 14, 2025):

Last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting all Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers from participating in events sponsored by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) on official time. The reason, Blanche candidly explained, was that the ABA had recently joined a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. The next day, DOJ cancelled a series of grants with the ABA that funded services to victims of domestic and sexual violence. The only explanation offered for the cancellation was a terse statement indicating that the grants “no longer effectuate[] . . . [DOJ] priorities.” Connecting these two rather large dots, the ABA promptly filed suit. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that termination of the grants constituted unlawful retaliation against the ABA for exercising its First Amendment right to petition the courts. A motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing DOJ from enforcing the termination soon followed.

The government does not meaningfully contest the merits of the ABA’s First Amendment retaliation claim. It points to no deficiencies in the ABA’s performance of its grant obligations. It concedes that similar grants administered by other organizations remain in place. It agrees that bringing a lawsuit is protected by the First Amendment. And it suggests no other cause for the cancellation apart from the sentiments expressed by Deputy Attorney General Blanche in his memorandum.

Rather, the government objects to the issuance of a preliminary injunction mainly on jurisdictional grounds.

(more…)

Following up on my previous post, ABA Files Suit Against DOJ's Funding Cuts That Forced Layoffs Of 300 Employees:  American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-1263 (D.D.C. May 14, 2025):

Last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting all Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers from participating in events sponsored by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) on official time. The reason, Blanche candidly explained, was that the ABA had recently joined a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. The next day, DOJ cancelled a series of grants with the ABA that funded services to victims of domestic and sexual violence. The only explanation offered for the cancellation was a terse statement indicating that the grants “no longer effectuate[] . . . [DOJ] priorities.” Connecting these two rather large dots, the ABA promptly filed suit. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that termination of the grants constituted unlawful retaliation against the ABA for exercising its First Amendment right to petition the courts. A motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing DOJ from enforcing the termination soon followed.

The government does not meaningfully contest the merits of the ABA’s First Amendment retaliation claim. It points to no deficiencies in the ABA’s performance of its grant obligations. It concedes that similar grants administered by other organizations remain in place. It agrees that bringing a lawsuit is protected by the First Amendment. And it suggests no other cause for the cancellation apart from the sentiments expressed by Deputy Attorney General Blanche in his memorandum.

Rather, the government objects to the issuance of a preliminary injunction mainly on jurisdictional grounds.

(more…)

New Civil Rights Group Files Federal Discrimination Complaint Alleging Racial Bias in Elite Law Fellowship Program:

Americans for Equal Opportunity (AEO), a civil rights membership organization, announced today that it has filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO) and 44 of the nation’s largest law firms.

AEO filed the complaint on behalf of several members who were rejected from the 2025 SEO Law Fellowship despite meeting or exceeding all academic and professional qualifications. According to AEO, these applicants were excluded because they do not belong to the racial or ethnic groups preferred by SEO and its partner firms—namely, Black, Hispanic, or Native American applicants.

“This is systemic discrimination, plain and simple,” said AEO Board President Clegg Ivey. “SEO and its 44 partner law firms have built a racially exclusive hiring track that locks out qualified students based on the color of their skin. That’s not diversity—that’s unlawful discrimination.”

The complaint describes SEO as both a staffing agency and a joint employer that works on behalf of these law firms to implement race-based selection processes aimed at satisfying racial quotas and diversity targets. According to AEO, SEO recruits, screens, and selects roughly 200 Fellows each year and places them directly into paid summer positions at the firms, which can pay over $4,000 per week. Often, the firms themselves do not conduct their own independent HR evaluations of candidates.

“Law firms use SEO to bypass traditional merit-based hiring,” Ivey continued. “They outsource the selection process to a nonprofit organization that openly discriminates on their behalf, and they reward that discrimination with lucrative internship and job offers—often before students have received a single law school grade. Not only do they discriminate, they do it through a tax-exempt organization and treat it like a charitable contribution.”

The charge further asserts that many of the Fellowship’s participants are ultimately fast-tracked into otherwise competitive, full-time, permanent positions at the Sponsor Firms, often receiving offers to join the firm as an employee and bonuses not available to similarly situated law students of disfavored racial backgrounds, who must have top academic credentials to secure a job offer. (Entry-level positions at the Sponsor Firms pay a minimum of $220,000 per year before bonuses.)

AEO contends that both SEO and the Sponsor Firms are liable for unlawful discrimination, arguing that the program violates the Civil Rights Act’s prohibitions on race-based hiring by both employment agencies and employers.

Participating Law Firms:

(more…)

New Civil Rights Group Files Federal Discrimination Complaint Alleging Racial Bias in Elite Law Fellowship Program:

Americans for Equal Opportunity (AEO), a civil rights membership organization, announced today that it has filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO) and 44 of the nation’s largest law firms.

AEO filed the complaint on behalf of several members who were rejected from the 2025 SEO Law Fellowship despite meeting or exceeding all academic and professional qualifications. According to AEO, these applicants were excluded because they do not belong to the racial or ethnic groups preferred by SEO and its partner firms—namely, Black, Hispanic, or Native American applicants.

“This is systemic discrimination, plain and simple,” said AEO Board President Clegg Ivey. “SEO and its 44 partner law firms have built a racially exclusive hiring track that locks out qualified students based on the color of their skin. That’s not diversity—that’s unlawful discrimination.”

The complaint describes SEO as both a staffing agency and a joint employer that works on behalf of these law firms to implement race-based selection processes aimed at satisfying racial quotas and diversity targets. According to AEO, SEO recruits, screens, and selects roughly 200 Fellows each year and places them directly into paid summer positions at the firms, which can pay over $4,000 per week. Often, the firms themselves do not conduct their own independent HR evaluations of candidates.

“Law firms use SEO to bypass traditional merit-based hiring,” Ivey continued. “They outsource the selection process to a nonprofit organization that openly discriminates on their behalf, and they reward that discrimination with lucrative internship and job offers—often before students have received a single law school grade. Not only do they discriminate, they do it through a tax-exempt organization and treat it like a charitable contribution.”

The charge further asserts that many of the Fellowship’s participants are ultimately fast-tracked into otherwise competitive, full-time, permanent positions at the Sponsor Firms, often receiving offers to join the firm as an employee and bonuses not available to similarly situated law students of disfavored racial backgrounds, who must have top academic credentials to secure a job offer. (Entry-level positions at the Sponsor Firms pay a minimum of $220,000 per year before bonuses.)

AEO contends that both SEO and the Sponsor Firms are liable for unlawful discrimination, arguing that the program violates the Civil Rights Act’s prohibitions on race-based hiring by both employment agencies and employers.

Participating Law Firms:

(more…)