NAWL Joins Bar Association Presidents' Call on Leaders to Double Down on DEI

August 15, 2024

August 15, 2024


Sixty Years Later, DEI Advances the Ongoing Work of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Bar Association Presidents from Across the Nation Call on Leaders to Double Down on DEI


As presidents of the nation’s largest diverse national bar associations, we invite general counsel, law firm managing partners, leaders of government and nonprofit legal services organizations, and law school deans to stand with us as we fight for justice and opportunity for all. Your support and partnership are even more critical now given the attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from some segments of our country. As lawyers, we are guardians of the rule of law and leaders in our communities and in local, state, and federal government. For these reasons and more, we ask that you continue to be strong advocates for DEI in our profession. Our work and efforts can also support the importance of DEI more broadly.


Honoring the Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This sweeping Act did more to bring us closer to our ideals, that we are all are created equal, than any other legislation in our history, and it set the groundwork for landmark legislation that followed it such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although many Americans today might take for granted the significance of passing this legislation, it was a hard- fought victory. Most of us recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. His reference to “the fierce urgency of now” was intended to push President Kennedy and Congress to move on the stalled legislation. When the legislation finally passed, close to thirty percent of the House of the Representatives and the Senate voted against it. It is not lost on us that many of the states now passing anti-DEI legislation also included the bulk of the Representatives and Senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Progress Through Partnership

As a nation, we have made significant progress in the past 60 years because of the blood, sweat, and tears of those who have come before us. In the past and continuing to this day, there have been Americans of goodwill who believe that we are a better nation when all Americans can aspire to their highest ambitions, including becoming President of the United States.


DEI is Consistent with the Spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Essential in Today’s Workplace 

Although some claim that DEI initiatives are illegal or unconstitutional, the vast majority of DEI initiatives are designed to increase access and opportunity, while minimizing bias and barriers. The work is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also brings greater meritocracy to our workplaces. How can there be meritocracy in workplaces if there are insufficient efforts to recruit exceptional talent from all communities, or when there is unintended bias in our processes related to hiring, work assignments, and promotions, or when some people have greater access to formal and informal networks that result in greater opportunities? These are just some examples of issues that DEI efforts are designed to address. Again, the overwhelming majority of DEI efforts are not only legal, but essential in today’s workplace. This is why it is critical to stand firm on the importance of DEI and be strong advocates in your corporations, law firms, and universities.


Progress, but Much Work to Be Done

Although we have made progress, there is still much work to do. According to the US Census Bureau and 2023 Gallup polling, communities of color presently represent about 41% and LGBTQ+ people represent about 7.6% of the US population. Individuals with disabilities currently represent more than one in five Americans. But recent studies from the American Bar Association, Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) show that people of color only account for about 21% of lawyers in the US, 15% of Fortune 1000 general counsels, and 12% of law firm partners; likewise, LGBTQ+ people only account for 4.6% of lawyers in the US, and 2.6% of law firm partners. Individuals with disabilities account for only 1.4% of the legal profession and 1.1% of law firm partners. Further, according to studies from the American Bar Association and NALP, women comprised almost 50% of law school classes in 2000, yet today, women comprise less than 28% of law firm partners. Looking at these numbers, it’s impossible to conclude that we’ve achieved the type of success that would warrant pulling back on our efforts simply because there is opposition. Those who came before us faced even greater opposition and hostility. We owe it to them and those who are coming behind us to keep working to ensure a fairer workplace and more just nation.


Allying Together for Greater Equality, Access, and Opportunity for All.

Finally, there is an economic argument for supporting DEI. When all our communities do well, we have more people contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of our country. A rising tide lifts all boats. Whether our ancestors were this country’s indigenous people, or pilgrims on The Mayflower, or kidnapped Africans on slave ships, or freedom-searching immigrants arriving at Ellis Island or Angel Island, or any of the many others seeking refuge and a new life in a new land, we are all in the same boat now. We are all Americans. Our country is already one of the most diverse nations in the world, and it will continue to become even more diverse. And the exceptional achievements of our country, economically, militarily, and socially, are the result of people from all over the world who have come here and made this country home. As we move forward together, we can show the world what a pluralistic democracy can accomplish. Now is the time for leaders and people of goodwill to stand together for greater equality, access, and opportunity for all. Together we can ensure that America lives up to its ideals, where all people are created equal and have the opportunity to achieve the American dream.


Wiley S. Adams

President

National Bar Association

National Bar Association logo

Matthew Archer-Beck

President

National Native American

Bar Association

National Native American Bar Association logo

Kristin L. Bauer

President

National Association of Women Lawyers

National Association of Women Lawyers logo

Anna Mercado Clark

President

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association logo

Bendita Cynthia Malakia

President

National LGBTQ+ Bar Association

National LGBTQ+ Bar logo

Daniel Mateo

President

Hispanic National Bar Association

Hispanic National Bar Association logo

Ronza Othman

President

National Association of Blind Lawyers

National Association of Blind Lawyers logo

Keerthi Sugumaran

President

South Asian Bar Association of North America

South Asian Bar Association of North America logo
June 30, 2025
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.
Trans flag waving against a blue sky.
June 24, 2025
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .
April 29, 2025
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
April 2, 2025
Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic
More Posts