Columns

In 2025, upon the 10th anniversary of the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that made same-sex marriages legal in America, Ken Mogill, one of the attorneys for the Michigan plaintiffs in the case, reflected on the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has become among the most transformative chapters in the history of human rights.

By Tom Kirvan
Legal News

In 2025, upon the 10th anniversary of the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that made same-sex marriages legal in America, Ken Mogill, one of the attorneys for the Michigan plaintiffs in the case, reflected on the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has become among the most transformative chapters in the history of human rights.

Mogill, who since 2002 has been an adjunct professor at Wayne State University Law School, penned a “Point of View” article on the case and the long struggle for marriage equality, a legal and social movement that fundamentally redefined dignity and equal protection under the law.

His article, which appeared in the Wayne Lawyer magazine, offered a riveting account of the legal battle that involved several other members of the Wayne State community – attorney Dana Nessel, a 1994 alumna of the law school who is finishing her second term as Michigan’s Attorney General, and renowned constitutional law professor Robert Sedler, who passed away in January 2025 at the age of 89.

“Without Dana there wouldn’t have been the case to begin with,” Mogill said emphatically. “She was the driving force behind getting it going and doing so much throughout the case to educate people to the issues in the case.”

Wayne Law Professor Sedler also played a pivotal role in developing a legal strategy in the case, based in part on having “written a prescient 2003 law review article that laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying were unconstitutional,” Mogill indicated.

In addition, Ann Arbor attorney Carole Stanyar was part of the legal team assembled by Nessel. A Yale University grad who earned her juris doctor from Boston College Law, Stanyar is an “accomplished litigator and appellate lawyer” who had prior U. S. Supreme Court experience to her credit, according to Mogill. 

Mogill, of course, also had a front-row seat to the proceedings, joining Nessel, Sedler, and Stanyar as lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Michigan marriage equality case. 

The legal journey, Mogill explained, began not as a sweeping constitutional challenge to the institution of marriage, but instead as a deeply personal quest for family security. In 2011, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses living together in Hazel Park, were raising three adopted children, two of whom had special needs. 

Since Michigan law banned unmarried couples from jointly adopting, each child could only be legally adopted by one parent, the legal team explained. If something happened to the legal parent, the other would have no custody rights, leaving the children vulnerable to being separated by the foster care system, he indicated. Desperate to protect their family, the couple sought legal counsel.

Originally, the lawsuit targeted only Michigan’s restrictive adoption law, Mogill indicated. However, during a pivotal motion hearing, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman posed a striking question to Stanyar, who was arguing the motion for the legal team: “Aren’t you really challenging the marriage amendment,” Judge Friedman asked, practically inviting them to amend their complaint to bring the state’s constitutional ban of same-sex marriage into play.

“This was a ‘now-what-do-we-do’ moment,” Mogill wrote in the Wayne Lawyer article. “The judge had thrown cold water on our argument but offered a lifeline. We were terrified that if we challenged the marriage amendment prematurely and lost, we would set back the struggle for marriage equality nationally. But what about April and Jayne’s children? 
We amended the complaint.”

The case then shifted into a direct challenge against Michigan’s 2004 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The federal trial that followed in 2014 proved historic, becoming one of the only marriage equality cases nationwide to feature a full evidentiary trial examining the sociological and psychological realities of same-sex parenting. The state, according to Mogill, argued strongly that traditional marriage structures were necessary for child-rearing and that the will of the state’s voters should be upheld.

During closing arguments, Mogill delivered an impassioned defense of human dignity.

“There is a well-emerged awareness that denial of the right to marry is a form of discrimination that our society can no longer tolerate,” Mogill stated firmly to the court, emphasizing that fundamental constitutional rights are designed to protect minorities from the overreach of majorities. 

As a matter of modern law, Mogill argued, marriage had evolved into a gender-neutral institution grounded in love, mutual commitment, and equal protection.

“Thinking about what makes marriage fundamental led me to reflect on my own marriage,” Mogill wrote in the Wayne Lawyer article. “My parents had wanted me to marry a ‘nice Jewish girl.’ Instead, I married Maureen Shaughnessy, a wonderful Irish Catholic woman. Unlike April and Jayne, no one told us our different religious backgrounds barred marriage. 

Our right to marry didn’t depend on children, adoption, parenting skills, cohabitation, or even love. Stripped of cultural and religious practices, marriage is a civil contract that doesn’t distinguish rights or duties based on gender.”

Judge Friedman agreed, striking down Michigan’s marriage ban. Though the state immediately appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later reversed the trial court decision on a 2-1 vote, the groundwork had been laid. The Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder, was consolidated with similar challenges from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, ascending to the highest court in the land as companion cases to Obergefell v. Hodges.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry across all 50 states. 

The impact, said Mogill, was staggering, as instantly millions of LGBTQ+ Americans were granted the same legal protections, tax benefits, inheritance rights, and social recognition long afforded to heterosexual couples. More importantly, according to Mogill, it erased the state-sanctioned stigma that labeled their relationships and families as lesser.

By the time the case ended, the Michigan plaintiffs, April and Jayne, had adopted two more children. Mogill’s own family also was “touched” by the Supreme Court decision.

“Our youngest daughter and oldest grandson came out, married, and celebrated without an asterisk – in each case their celebration was ‘just’ a wedding,” Mogill said. 

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ On June 26, 2015, the arc became a rainbow,” Mogill declared.

In August, Child Support Month in Michigan, I held a conversation with G. Bomani Gray for Coffee and Conversation.
Bomani Gray is the University of Michigan’s Project Director of the Coalition of Practitioners for Father Support. 

By Zenell Brown

In August, Child Support Month in Michigan, I held a conversation with G. Bomani Gray for Coffee and Conversation.

Bomani Gray is the University of Michigan’s Project Director of the Coalition of Practitioners for Father Support. 

With the support of the University of Michigan School of Social Work, he serves as the project director for the Michigan Action Plan for Father Involvement (MAP-FI), helping to create “Michigan’s Children with a Father-Fueled Future.”  

Bomani and I have known each other over a decade as our respective work paths families and child support crossed. While enjoying our morning beverages, Bomani shares his reflections on changing court practices, the value of Dad Cafes, and a vision for justice systems that recognize fathers as whole people and meaningful participants in their children’s lives.

Zenell: When we talk about fathers and the justice system, what do you most want court and legal professionals to understand?

Bomani: I would like to see greater understanding — and perhaps greater compassion — for fathers who interact with the justice system. That requires court and legal professionals to look beyond their personal experiences and the stereotypes they may commonly encounter.

Some fathers are doing the very best they can under difficult circumstances. 

We need to recognize that traditional views of fathers were often shaped by earlier expectations about gender and family roles. 

Those expectations do not always reflect the realities of today’s families or the complexities of an individual father’s life.

Zenell: Are you seeing changes in how courts engage with fathers?

Bomani: Yes. Courts are doing better, particularly in the language they use when speaking to and about fathers. We are also seeing courts consider responses other than incarceration when fathers are unable to meet their child-support obligations.

It is encouraging that the old “lock them up” approach and the broad labeling of fathers as “deadbeat dads” are no longer as accepted as they once were. There is also greater support for fathers who genuinely want to be engaged and involved in their children’s lives.

Zenell: Tell me about the network supporting this work.

Bomani: Our organization has approximately 300 representatives. The network includes fatherhood organizations, courts, governmental agencies, and other community partners. Bringing these groups 
together creates opportunities to improve systems, strengthen relationships, and better support fathers and families.

Zenell: One of the initiatives you mentioned was the Dad Cafes. What are they?

Bomani: For the past three years, we have held Dad Cafes to provide fathers with a welcoming, non-adversarial introduction to the court system. The cafes allow fathers to engage with court and child-support professionals in a setting that is very different from a courtroom.

The sessions help dispel common myths about the courts — including beliefs that the system is inherently biased against fathers or primarily interested in locking people up.

Zenell: Where have the Dad Cafes been held?

Bomani: Sessions have been held in Calhoun County, Grand Rapids, and Wayne County. Approximately four to six sessions are offered each year, with the involvement of the Office of Child Support.

Zenell: What difference have these conversations made?

Bomani: They have helped build better relationships between fathers and court systems. When fathers meet court professionals in a less formal environment, they can ask questions, better understand court processes, and begin to see the people within the system differently. Court professionals also gain an opportunity to listen directly to fathers and better understand their experiences.

Zenell: What is your broader vision for this work?

Bomani: The vision is to reimagine court systems in which families are at the center and fathers are supported in playing meaningful roles in their children’s lives.

To achieve that vision, we must move beyond traditional assumptions and negative stereotypes about fathers. 

We must be willing to see the whole person and recognize the complexities of fatherhood including how race, socioeconomic circumstances, family history, access to resources, and other human dimensions may shape a father’s experiences.

Ultimately, this is about building court systems that see fathers not simply through the problems that brought them to court, but as parents who may need information, support, accountability, and a meaningful opportunity to remain involved in their children’s lives.

Zenell: Bomani, it’s always a pleasure talking with you. Where can lawyers and court professionals who work with dads find more info on MAP-FI.

Bomani: www.Map-fi.org

In this column, we are going to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

By Berl Falbaum

In this column, we are going to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

I can hear your reaction: What took you so long?

I’ll confess that I hardly knew much about NPVIC until a good friend, David Shepherd, called my attention to it.

And I learned that if adopted, it would provide a seismic change in how we elected the president of the United States.

First some background

Introduced in 2006, NPVIC would be an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and D.C. 

According the organization heading the drive, the compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.

Thus far, 17 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the measure for a total of 209 electoral votes.  The number needed is 270 out of a total of 538 electors.   

The Virginia legislature also has passed the required bill and, if signed by the governor, it would bring the total to 222. Forty-eight to go.

In Michigan, with has 15 electoral votes, the measure was introduced in 2023 by Representative Carrie Rheingans, a Democrat who represents western Washtenaw County and southeastern Jackson County.

It was sent to committee but “died” before a vote could be taken on the floor. In an interview with The Detroit Legal News, she said she is considering reintroducing the bill and hopes to have the entire package adopted before the next presidential election in 2028. She’s optimistic.

Now, overall, most, if not all, good government organizations support abandoning the electoral system of electing a president. 

Generally, they point to the losses of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, who were defeated in their races despite winning the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, respectively.

Thus, they argue, no more “seven swing states” to elect a president serving a population of 338 million.

Strong argument but ...

--Ultimately, the election still relies on electoral votes.

--Voters who cast their ballot for the candidate not receiving their state’s electoral votes will feel disenfranchised.

--While NPVIC maintains that adoption would not require changes in the Constitution, opponents argue otherwise, almost guaranteeing a 
prolonged legal fight. Some insist it would require approval from Congress.

--Democrats and Republicans are split on the issue with the former supporting it and Republicans in opposition.  Do we need another national inter-party battle?

--Opponents worry about the possibility of needing nationwide recounts in close elections. They observe that no state can compel other states to recount votes, and without uniform procedures, the legitimacy of the president-elect could be questioned. 

--Supporters contend that NPVIC gives states with large populations an edge over smaller ones. But this isn’t a state issue it is a national one. We don’t use electors in state-wide elections for governor and U.S. senators even though the political interests of counties are different.

For instance, in Michigan, Wayne County has the largest population (1.78 million) of Michigan’s 83 counties and no one would propose to adopt an electoral system that has the other 82 counties ban together in voting for governor and the two U.S. senators to balance the power of Wayne County. Surely, residents in Wayne County have competing objectives with Keweenaw County – population of a whopping 2,060 – in the Upper Peninsula.

In a comprehensive analysis, the renowned think tank, the Cato Institute, concludes: “In an era when disputed elections are becoming more common and where the laws governing presidential elections are already riddled with dangerous ambiguities, the NPVIC is an invitation to a constitutional crisis. 

“With the world’s most powerful office at stake, America’s presidential election procedures need certainty and stability. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact threatens to bring us the exact opposite, an election in which the rules would be extremely uncertain and unsettled.

“Rather than risking such a high-stakes catastrophe, opponents of the Electoral College should accept there’s no easy shortcut around the difficult task of amending the Constitution.”

So, what to do?

Why not just to go a straight popular vote? Why do we need electors at all?  It makes little sense. The electoral system was initiated to placate slave states with a lower population than Northern states because slaves did not have the right to vote. A change is long overdue; let’s say some 150 years or so.

Thus, I am casting my one non-elector vote to adopt a “pure popular” vote and have the president elected by the majority of Americans.

Yes, that would require a change in the Constitution but it would end a long-standing debate.

The answer seems so simple that I know we will continue arguing about this for years to come.

Nothing ever comes easy in our politics.

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

By Sarah Kuchon 

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

However, incivility and unprofessionalism should not be. Such conduct adds a weight that should never be part of the job. We understand that disagreement and advocacy are part of the profession, but what should be professional disagreements too often become personal attacks, and what should be intentional advocacy can become performative. 

As professionals, we must reconsider what zeal in advocacy actually requires. 

It is easier to see incivility in someone else’s conduct, but the only behavior lawyers can control is their own. Culture shifts one lawyer at a time, through the thousands of choices we make and how we show up in our professional work each day. Have you ever walked out of a conversation wishing for a do-over? Perhaps it was a curt reply, an email sent too quickly, or a defensive explanation. These moments remind us that incivility and unprofessionalism can be subtle and unintentional, shaped by pressure more than malice. One of my favorite quotes is from psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, who wrote, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Frankl reminds us that there will always be events that trigger us. Our power lies in pausing and considering our choice: Will we react impulsively or respond with reflection and intention? This practice, repeated one lawyer and one moment at a time, is how our profession grows in civility and professionalism.  

Reaction vs. Response  

A critical difference exists between reaction and response. A reaction is immediate and driven by the nervous system’s urge to reduce tension. Reaction narrows options and can escalate conflict. A response, on the other hand, includes a pause for reflection and consideration of objectives, tone, and long-term consequences. Response widens options and better serves the client’s interests. 

The “space” Frankl describes is what psychology calls “the window of tolerance,” a framework developed by psychiatrist Daniel Siegel that describes our capacity to pause, think clearly, regulate emotions, and act in alignment with our values. Outside of that window, we move into fight, flight, or shutdown, and our response yields to our survival reflex. Legal practice routinely pushes lawyers to the edges of that window with contentious hearings, demanding clients, and relentless deadlines. Without awareness, reaction can become our default. 

Correcting a Misconception 

The phrase “zealous advocacy” has taken on a life of its own in legal culture. Many lawyers have come to hear “zeal” as permission for aggression, hostility, or winning at any cost, often at the expense of civility and professionalism. However, the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct never use the term “zealous advocate.” The comment to Rule 1.3 on diligence states only that a lawyer should act “with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy on the client’s behalf.” 

Zeal, by ordinary definition, means eagerness and enthusiastic interest in pursuit of a cause. Advocacy is the act of supporting a cause. Considered together, zealous advocacy is simply the enthusiastic pursuit of a client’s cause. That pursuit exists within the framework of ethics and professionalism. Within that framework, civility is not a courtesy but a professional discipline, and ethics calls us to to choose intention over impulsiveness.  When zeal is misunderstood as aggression rather than enthusiasm, self-interest can replace client interest.  That posture is not advocacy. It is reaction misnamed as zeal. 

A pause does not betray diligence. It protects it by preventing errors, aligning action with client objectives, ensuring competent representation, and promoting thoughtful execution. As lawyers, our ethics are guided by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which encompass core principles such as competence, diligence, candor, and fairness.  

These duties require professional judgment. A pause supports that judgment by creating space to consider obligations, options, and consequences and to notice whether we are serving the client’s interests or protecting our own comfort and image. The standard in our rules is reasonable promptness, not immediacy, and certainly not impulsive promptness. The canon implies deliberation. Incivility and unprofessional conduct often grow from reactivity rather than reflection. The pause helps us meet our ethical obligations. The challenge is learning how to widen the space when pressure narrows it. 

Widening Our Window 

Creating space is a practical skill. We widen our window of tolerance through ongoing awareness, reflection, and practice. We can practice in small, ordinary ways: delaying an email rather than pressing send in the heat of the moment, pausing to ask whether our conduct serves the client’s interests, using a brief recess to allow emotions to settle before proceeding, and, when all else fails, pausing to breathe. Slow, steady breathing signals safety to the nervous system, calming the stress response and allowing the thinking parts of the brain to come back online. One effective breathing technique to try is box breathing: inhale for four counts, hold for four, exhale for four, and hold again for four, like tracing the four sides of a box. Even 30 seconds of intentional breathing can change the course of an interaction. 

Practicing True Zeal 

Leadership in law is rarely dramatic. More often, it looks like steadiness in ordinary moments. It is the discipline to remain calm when provoked, the resolve to do what is right rather than what is easy, and the wisdom to know when to speak and when to remain silent. 

Lawyers shape the tone of litigation, courtrooms, and negotiations through their conduct. That influence calls us to be pillars of the profession, leaders who bring enthusiasm to their work while meeting pressure with professionalism, fortitude, and response over reaction. This form of leadership models true zeal in advocacy. 

Harper Lee’s character Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies zealous advocacy in action. When he sits outside the jail to protect his client, he is calm, collected, and unwavering in the face of threats. His courage is not theatrical; it is regulated and principled. The jail scene is only one of many moments in which Atticus demonstrates zealous advocacy — from his careful preparation to his respectful engagement — and unwavering thdelity to the rule of law. His conduct demonstrates what zeal in advocacy rightly means: advocacy anchored in enthusiasm, civility, and professionalism. 

When we choose response over reaction, we show colleagues, clients, and young lawyers that zealous advocacy is not loud, hostile, or aggressive. We model that strength can be calm, that professionalism can be thrm without being harsh, and that passion for a client’s cause can coexist with respect for everyone involved. Our profession needs more people like Atticus Finch, advocates who prove day after day that true zeal is deliberate, principled, and humane. 
————————
Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.

About a year and a half ago, one of your business clients called. A customer of theirs filed for bankruptcy, and they wanted your guidance. You helped them file a Proof of Claim, noting that meaningful recovery was unlikely.

By Ronald A. Spinner and Steven A. Roach

About a year and a half ago, one of your business clients called. A customer of theirs filed for bankruptcy, and they wanted your guidance. You helped them file a Proof of Claim, noting that meaningful recovery was unlikely. You suggested the client review its records for any telltale signs that might help them identify problem cases like this one, for future preemptive action. Your client thanked you, happy to put the matter behind it.

Today, you received a call from your now anxious client. They just received a letter written on the bankrupt company’s behalf. The letter demanded that your client “return” a significant amount of money (much more than listed in its Proof of Claim) that the letter claimed your client had received in the 90 days prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. The letter’s tone was almost apologetic. The letter stressed that the client did nothing wrong, but insisted that the debtor could still demand this money back, offering a slight “discount” for quick payment. 

One thing was clear:  if your client doesn’t pay soon, it will be sued. Your client is surprised and concerned (and a bit miffed). How can they do this? Can you help? 

Your client just received a “preference demand.” This article discusses what that is, why debtors make them, and the two most common defenses used to minimize exposure to them. 

“What the heck is a ‘preference?’”

The concept of “preference” dates back to old English law. Old English judges believed that debtors know when they are in trouble. When they are, debtors begin to choose which bills to pay and which to ignore. Aggressive or important creditors are paid “preferentially” over less critical ones, even though most have similar rights in an insolvency proceeding. Those paid will have received at least some funds when a bankruptcy case is eventually filed. The rest get little or nothing.

English judges thought this approach was unfair. They believed that all unsecured creditors who received funds from a debtor in the months prior to bankruptcy should pool the money received so that it can divided pro rata amongst them. This idea became enshrined in U.S. law, setting the 90-day window immediately prior to the bankruptcy filing as the lookback, or “preference,” period.  U.S. law also provided creditors with defenses, so that they would continue to work with troubled companies rather than flee at the first sign of trouble. 

The “demand letter” is the first step of the process, seeking return of funds a creditor received from the debtor. 

“So, what do I do when my client gets a letter like this?”

First, don’t panic! The defenses discussed here (and others) usually can mitigate the demand, and usually by more than the typical 5-25% discount a trustee may offer for quick payment. The two most used defenses are “subsequent new value” and “subjective ordinary course.” 

“Subsequent new value” is usually the harder of these two for a trustee to challenge, though the defense is limited in scope. Its concept is simple:  if a debtor makes a payment to a creditor, and the creditor subsequently delivers goods or services to the debtor worth as much or more than the payment, then the debtor ends up no worse off. The “new value” provided by the creditor “subsequent” to the payment replenishes the debtor’s estate. Of course, only subsequent replenishment counts, and the estate must truly benefit from these goods and services for this to apply. For instance, if goods provided are subject to an unavoidable lien, they won’t count for this defense.

The other common defense is the “subjective ordinary course of business" defense. This defense applies if a creditor’s transactions with the debtor during the preference period are very similar to those prior to the preference period. 

If the creditor did not suddenly change payment terms or start calling the debtor repeatedly for payment, and if the debtor did not suddenly start paying more slowly or quickly than before, then this defense might shield some of the debtor’s payments from recovery. 

Of course, showing that transactions were “ordinary” usually requires a bit of statistical analysis, but a good preference defense attorney can handle that. 

Attorneys who know the technical details of how these two defenses work can combine them, yielding greater savings.

The bottom line?  Preferences usually can be resolved, often without litigation

There are other defenses, of course, but suffice here to say that most preferences can be mitigated, at least to some extent.

 The best thing you can do when your client receives a demand letter like this is to connect them with a reputable preference attorney. The preference attorney can help them determine what their defenses are and what their exposure might be. A good preference defense attorney will attempt to resolve the demand through negotiation, rather than litigation, to minimize expenses. Most trustees are amenable to (and, pun intended), “prefer” such an approach. 

Sooner or later, most companies get one of these letters. The good news is that these demands can be resolved, often for far less than is demanded. While no one “prefers” to get one of these letters, it is good to know that these letters usually are not as threatening as they initially appear. 

Ronald A. Spinner is a principal at Miller Canfield whose practice focuses on bankruptcy, restructuring and insolvency, including creditor representation, distressed transactions, loan enforcement and related matters. He is known for developing practical, results-oriented strategies in complex matters, including novel issues involving Chapter 9 proceedings, preference defense and cryptocurrency in bankruptcy.

Steven A. Roach is a principal at Miller Canfield with 40 years of experience in commercial transactions, loan enforcement, restructuring and insolvency matters. He represents financial institutions, secured lenders and other clients in workouts, receiverships, bankruptcy-related disputes and complex commercial litigation.
–––
Reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

For the last eleven months, I’ve been saying that the American Bar Association’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is unwavering. 
The recent vote by the independent accreditation council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to repeal certain law school diversity and inclusion standards has raised important questions across our profession and among many ABA members. Some have asked: How can these two things be true?

By Michelle A. Behnke
ABA President

For the last eleven months, I’ve been saying that the American Bar Association’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is unwavering. 

The recent vote by the independent accreditation council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to repeal certain law school diversity and inclusion standards has raised important questions across our profession and among many ABA members. Some have asked: How can these two things be true?

Let me start by stating a fact that most people don’t know or understand: The council exercises separate and independent authority when carrying out its accreditation function. Under federal requirements designed to ensure autonomy, all accrediting agencies — including the accreditation council — must operate independently from the professional association. The council’s action was taken in that independent accreditation capacity. The accreditation council is separate from the ABA. Its actions do not alter the ABA’s broader mission, values or ongoing commitments.

The ABA remains committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and equal access remains a high priority. Those principles are reflected in ABA Goal III — to eliminate bias and enhance diversity in the association, the legal profession and the justice system. 

Last year, the ABA Board of Governors reaffirmed that commitment and emphasized that full and equal participation in the profession and justice system remains central to the ABA’s work. While we know that the accreditation council’s actions will have an effect on the legal profession and who has access to a legal education, the ABA will continue its work to be inclusive and expand opportunities and access. 

Across the country, institutions are facing growing pressure around diversity and inclusion efforts. The accreditation council is among those facing pressure, as is the ABA. It is incredibly difficult for many organizations. However, this is not a moment for ambiguity for this association.

The ABA has long recognized that excellence in the legal profession and meaningful opportunity are connected, not mutually exclusive ideas. Too many talented students and young lawyers still face barriers to opportunity and advancement. To strengthen public trust in the legal system, we must expand, not narrow, pathways into the profession.

The American Bar Association, therefore, must speak clearly about the value of fairness, opportunity and equal access within the legal profession. 

Through the ABA Center for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and the work of many ABA entities, we will continue to support pipeline programs, mentorship, leadership development, judicial diversity and access to justice. 

Engaging in and supporting these efforts strengthens the profession and upholds equal justice under law. 

The accreditation council’s decisions to adopt, revise, amend or repeal standards are submitted for consideration to the ABA House of Delegates, the policy-making body of our association. The House process affords members the opportunity to engage in civil discourse and debate about issues important to the profession, including this one, but the vote of the House does not control the ultimate decision on the issue.

The legal profession is strongest when it draws on the experiences, talents and perspectives of people from every background and every community. 

Diversity does not weaken our profession. It deepens it. It broadens understanding, strengthens public trust and helps ensure the law serves all people fairly and fully.

The ABA will continue to speak clearly, act often and stand firmly for a profession that reflects the principles of fairness, opportunity and equal justice that define both our mission and our democracy.

Our strength as a profession has never come from sameness. It comes from the people, perspectives and experiences that together make the law stronger, trusted and more capable of serving the public.
————————
Michelle A. Behnke, a member of the Boardman Clark law firm in Madison, Wisconsin, is president of the American Bar Association.

(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/06/what-independent-accreditation-process-means/)