Recently, the State Bar of Wisconsin agreed to strip all race, gender, and religion-based criteria from its programs, marking a dramatic end to years of DEI policies that critics called unconstitutional. The move comes after a lawsuit brought a major attack on the inclusivity policies by bringing the state’s bar association to court.
Wisconsin’s Diversity Program
In 1993, the State Bar of Wisconsin established its Diversity Clerkship Program to address what it saw as a lack of racial (and other) diversity within the state’s private legal sector. The program offers paid summer internships to law students, aiming to connect them with prominent employers across the state. Over the decades, nearly 600 students have participated, gaining valuable work experience and professional connections.
Daniel Suhr is an attorney and a long-standing member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, having paid dues to the organization every year since 2008. He describes himself as a constitutional conservative, deeply committed to the principle of equality under the law. Suhr’s legal career has focused on public-interest litigation, and he has a history of engaging with issues that touch on constitutional rights and the boundaries of government authority. His attention to detail is evident—even noting a typo on a Bar dues form once prompted the Bar to thank him with a small gift.
Suhr apparently had a bone to pick with the Wisconsin Bar over the Diversity Clerkship Program. What got the program on his radar was the Bar’s use of mandatory dues to fund the Diversity Clerkship Program and similar initiatives. Suhr claims he tried to take a “Keller deduction” (which is supposed to reduce dues for members who object to certain political or ideological activities). But even after taking that, Suhr claims that he found that his money still supported the program.
So of course, he decided to address the issue the way members of the bar know best: take it to court.
Suhr’s Lawsuit
Suhr filed a complaint against the Wisconsin Bar in a federal court in Wisconsin, arguing that its procedures for classifying activities as chargeable or non-chargeable are opaque and constitutionally inadequate. This, he argued, makes it difficult for members to know how their dues are being used or to effectively object. Suhr wasn’t exactly alone, even if he was the sole plaintiff. He was represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL). WILL describes itself as an organization dedicated to defending principles of limited government, individual liberty, and the rule of law. The group frequently engages in litigation and advocacy on issues related to constitutional rights and civil liberties, so it stepped in to represent the Wisconsin attorney.
Suhr claimed that the Diversity Clerkship Program discriminates on the basis of race and other protected traits. According to him, the program’s eligibility requirements and selection process give preference to minority law students, thereby excluding others based on immutable characteristics. He alleges that the selection process relies on protected traits, encouraging students to frame their experiences around diversity narratives.
The lawyer claims that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — as well as an affront to the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and association. Suhr asked the court for an order declaring the Bar’s actions unconstitutional, as well as an injunction to stop his dues from being used for such programs. He also asked the court to require the Bar to implement changes to its dues-collection practices.
Attacks and Defenses
The Bar defended the program as a necessary step toward a more inclusive legal profession. Suhr essentially was trying to claim that eligibility for the program is not open to all. But the Bar’s “Diversity & Inclusion Guide” states that for purposes of the program, “diversity” has a “dynamic meaning that evolves as the demographics in the state change.” It is explicitly defined by the Winson Bar as an “inclusive concept that encompasses, among other things, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, age, sexual orientation and disability.”
The litigation quickly brought to light internal communications and documents showing that the Bar’s selection processes for leadership programs and clerkships often explicitly considered race, ethnicity, and gender. Nomination forms, spreadsheets, and email correspondence revealed a system where candidates’ demographic traits were catalogued (and, in some cases, visually guessed when not self-reported). Some Bar leaders openly encouraged the nomination of non-white candidates, and applicants were prompted to highlight their “diversity” in essays. These practices, according to WILL, amounted to unconstitutional discrimination and compelled support for objectionable policies.
This case was all the more significant following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard just two years earlier. That case struck down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and other universities, and Suhr argued that affirmative action for student internships is just as unconstitutional as affirmative action for student admissions. His complaint also raised First Amendment concerns under the Keller doctrine—and if this name sounds familiar, yes, it is the same name as the deduction that Suhr tried to get from his bar dues. Unsurprisingly, the doctrine prohibits mandatory bar associations from compelling members to fund activities that aren't "germane" to regulating the legal profession or improving legal services.
Along those lines, Suhr argued that attorneys shouldn't be forced to subsidize ideological positions with which they disagree; this was particularly true when those activities fall outside the narrow scope of what mandatory bar associations are permitted to do. Beyond the diversity program itself, Suhr's lawsuit challenged the bar's inadequate dues-collecting procedures and its engagement in various non-germane political activities (e.g., promoting "Black Lives Matter" messaging and taking positions on controversial legislation).
Settlements Beget Stalemate
In April 2024, the parties reached a partial settlement. The State Bar agreed to revise its definition of “diversity” for the Diversity Clerkship Program. It made clear that the program was open to all first-year law students at Wisconsin’s two law schools, regardless of race or background. Promotional materials would no longer suggest that only students from historically excluded or disadvantaged groups were eligible. In exchange, WILL dropped its specific claims against the clerkship program--but continued to challenge the use of mandatory dues for such programming.
The legal battle culminated last week with a broader settlement. The State Bar agreed to remove all race-, sex-, and religion-based criteria from its programming. The Bar also adopted a new, neutral definition of “diversity,” one emphasizing differing experiences and viewpoints rather than identity categories. It is also committed to greater transparency in how it spends members’ dues.
WILL hailed the settlement as the effective end of DEI at the State Bar. “For now, DEI is dead at the State Bar of Wisconsin,” proclaimed WILL Deputy Counsel Dan Lennington. On the other side, State Bar officials insisted that the settlement was largely a matter of semantics and clarification, not a substantive overhaul. State Bar President Dan Gartzke characterized the agreement as “a confirmation of what we are already doing, in terms of inviting all members to take part in the opportunities the State Bar provides, despite how others may try to spin it.”
Related Resources:
- ABA Halts DEI Standard for Law School Accreditation (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- The Future of Law Firm DEI Programs (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- University DEI Programs Under Review By Trump Administration (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
